Religions 13 00179 v3

religions
Article
Article Why Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut Their Hands? Am

Re-Evaluating
AḥsanEarly Memorization
Iṣlāḥīʾs of the
Interpretation Qur ān in
of Qurʾān Medieval
12:31
Muslim Cultures
Mustansir Mir
Essam Ayyad
Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH 44555, USA; mmir@ysu.edu
Department of Humanities, College of Arts & Sciences, Qatar University, Doha P.O. Box 2713, Qatar;
eayyad@qu.edu.qa Abstract: Sūra 12 of the Qurʾān, Joseph, tells the story of the prophet Joseph. He is bought
Article
by an Egyptian high official, whose wife—tradition calls her Zulaykhā—makes an unsucc
Why Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Abstract: In medieval Cut
tempt Their
to seduce
Islam, Hands?
him, and
traditional primary Amīn
is ridiculed by herpractices
educational peers for herspecial
laid failureemphasis
to do so. on
She invites
banquet, hands them knives, and presents Joseph before them. Upon seeing him, the w
Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation
Article
learning ofthe Qurʾān
Qur ān by12:31
heart. Ideally, a pupil was primed to memorize the entirety of the Holy
Book—a feat known as khatma or h.adhqa. The successful learner would earn the prestigious sobriquet generally
their hands with the knives they are holding (Qurʾān 12:31). According to the
icle
Mustansir Mir Why Did the
of “h.āfiz ”, forEgyptian
whichexegetical
he/she wasNoblewomen
view,
to bethey do soknown
proudly Cut
because Their
forthey
the were
rest ofsoHands?
awestruck
his/her Amīn
by Joseph’s
life. Muslim beauty that the
youngsters
Why Did the EgyptianAḥsan Noblewomen Iṣlāḥīʾs
continue
˙ Cutknow Their
what
up to Interpretation Hands?
they
present times to memorizewere doing
offruit. Amīn
Qurʾān
the and accidentally
conceivably more or less the same way,that
Qur ān, in12:31 cut their hands while thinking in they we
ḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation
Youngstown State University, Youngstown,
of Qurʾān
traditional OH some
12:31In a sense, this practice developed into a symbol of Islamic conservatism that th
44555, food
USA;
Qur ānic schools. item, like
mmir@ysu.edu Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī differs from this view.
wished to succeed where Zulaykhā had failed, and, unable to persuade Joseph in the b
He argues
and nationalism in the face of modern non-Islamic ideological forces. Against this backdrop, recent
Mustansir Mir
Abstract: Sūra 12 of the Qurʾān, Joseph, tells the story of the prophet Joseph. He is bought as a slave
icle
stansir Mir by an Egyptian high pedagogical trendsthey
official, whose wife—tradition tendthreatened
to lay
calls herblame
to kill
on rote
Zulaykhā—makes
themselves
learning if as
an unsuccessful
Joseph would ineffective
a markedly
at-
not listen toteaching
them, and, to convince Jo
method.
Why Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut Their Hands? Amīn
tempt to seduce him,The is ridiculed byYoungstown
and pedagogical hertheypeers were
State
for serious
University,
her failure in
to carrying
Youngstown,
do so. She OH out the
44555,
invites
issues of contemporary educational apparatus in the Muslim countries and the threat,
USA;
them they
mmir@ysu.edu
to a deliberately cut their hands with knive
ḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31

banquet, State
Youngstown hands them knives,
University, and presents
Youngstown,
traditional Qur ānic
their hands with the knives they are holding
OH 44555, ticle
Joseph
Abstract:
USA; gives
(Qurʾān
before details
them. Upon
mmir@ysu.edu
preschools
Sūra12:31).
interpretation
in and
12 of the
of
According
calls
Iṣlāḥīʾs
seeing him,
beyond
Qurʾān, to
for
Joseph,
interpretation
the
re-evaluating
the women cut
Muslim world
tells the story
the generally accepted
some
of the
are usually ascribed to persistence discusses
Qurʾānic verse in question
of the prophet Joseph. He is bought as a slave
crucial
and
Abstract:
exegeticalSūraview,
12 of they
ofdo“abortive”
the Qurʾān, Joseph, tells
so because
medieval
by
theythe an
werestoryso of
practices
Egyptian high by
the prophet
awestruck
inJoseph’s
such
official,
Joseph.whoseinstitutions.
He iswife—tradition
beauty bought
However,
as a slave
that they didcalls thisaspects
hypothesisof the Qurʾānic
and
nother Zulaykhā—makes an unsuccessful at-
story of Joseph.
the lingering
ustansir Mir by know
an Egyptian
what theyhighwere presumptions
official,
doing whose temptcut
related
and wife—tradition
accidentally to seduce
tocalls
it are
their her
hands him,
based and
Zulaykhā—makes
while isdefective
ridiculed
onthinking an by herwere
modern
thatunsuccessful
they peers for her failureof
applications
at-
cutting to such
do so.medieval
She invites educational
them to a
tempt
some to food
seduce him,
item, likeand is
fruit. ridiculed
Amīn by
Aḥsan her Keywords:
banquet,
peers
Iṣlāḥī hands
for
differs her
from Qurʾān;
them
failure
this knives,
to do
view. Qurʾānic
and
so.
He presents
She
argues exegesis;
invitesthat
practices and inaccurate conceptions of how these practices are described by the sources. Generally, Joseph
them
the toIṣlāḥī;
before
women a Amīn
them. Aḥsan
Upon seeingIṣlāḥī; Joseph;
him, the womenZulaykhā;
cut Potiph
Article their hands with theto knives theyJoseph
are
banquet,
wishedhands
Youngstown toStatethem
succeed knives,
where
University, and presents
Zulaykhā
Youngstown, Joseph
had44555,
OH Egyptian
failed, before noblewomen
them.
and,mmir@ysu.edu
USA; unable Upon seeing
persuade him,holding
the (Qurʾān
women
in the cut 12:31). According to the generally accepted
beginning,
the intrinsic characteristicsexegetical view,
oftheytraditional Islamic pedagogy havebybeen explored, albeit partly, by
their
theyhands with the
threatened toknives they are holding
kill themselves if Joseph (Qurʾān
would not 12:31).
listen todo
According so because
them, they
to thetogenerally
and, convince wereaccepted
so awestruck
Joseph that Joseph’s beauty that they did not
Citation: Mir, Mustansir. only a 2021. Why number of Western surveys. This paper seeks to re-evaluate the efficiency of the
limited
Abstract:
exegetical
they were Sūra
view, 12they
seriousof the Qurʾān,
docarrying
in so because Joseph,thetells
out they know
the so
were
threat, theywhat
story they
awestruck
deliberately were
of the prophet doing
cutJoseph.
by Joseph’s and accidentally
He iswith
their beauty
hands bought
that they cut
asdid
knives. their
a slave hands
not ar-
This while thinking that they were cutting
Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut some food item, like fruit. Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī differs from this view. He argues that the women
Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31
by ticle
an what
know Egyptian
givesthey
Their
high
wereof
details
Hands? Amīn
pedagogies
official,
doing
Iṣlāḥīʾs whose
and
Aḥsan
related
wife—tradition
accidentally
interpretation
Iṣlāḥīʾs Article
to
cutthe
of
wished
memorizing
calls
their
to
her verse
hands
Qurʾānic
succeed
whilein the
Zulaykhā—makes
where
Qur
thinking
question
Zulaykhā
ān
that
andin
anthey
had
medieval
unsuccessful
were cutting
discusses
failed, and,
Muslim
howat- that
unable
primary schools. It opens the vista
to persuade Joseph in the beginning,
tempt
some to seduce
food item,
interpretation him,
like
calls and
fruit.
for is ridiculed
Amīn
re-evaluatingAḥsan by her
Iṣlāḥī
some peers
differs
crucial for her
from
aspects failure
this
of the to
view. do
He
Qurʾānic so. She
argues
story invites
that
to explore the extent to which such pedagogies resonated with the educational and cultural milieus
of the
Joseph.them
women to a
wished
Why Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut Their Hands? Am
banquet, Interpretation
tohands them ofknives,
Qurʾān 12:31. they1. threatened
The to
Problemtokill themselves
Stated if Joseph would not cut listen to them, and, to convince Joseph that
Mustansir Mir
succeed where
theand
of Zulaykhā time.presents Joseph
had failed,
To that
they
and,before
end,
were
unable
the them.
serious
paper Upon
persuade
inthem,
seeing
applies
carrying
Joseph
out
him, in the
literaturethe women
thegenerally
threat,
beginning,
they
and theoretical
deliberately
analysis of classical scholars.
cut their hands with knives. This ar-
Keywords:
their
they hands
threatened
Religions Qurʾān;
withtothe
12: x. Qurʾānic
killknives theyexegesis;
themselves are Iṣlāḥī;
holding
if Joseph Amīn
(Qurʾān
would notAḥsan
listen Iṣlāḥī;
12:31). toAccordingJoseph;
and,to Zulaykhā;
totheconvince Potiphar’s
accepted
Joseph thatwife;
In Sūra 12, which tells the story of Joseph, verses 23–29 relate
that how the wi
blewomen Cut Their Hands? AmīnAḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31
Citation: Ayyad, Essam.
exegetical
they were2022.
Egyptian noblewomen
view,
serious they
It also
do so because
in carrying
examines
out thethey were
threat,
primary
ticle
they gives and
details
sodeliberately
awestruck by
secondary
of Iṣlāḥīʾs
cutJoseph’s
their hands
Islamic
interpretation
beauty withthat
texts
of the
they This
knives.
as well
Qurʾānic
did notar-
as the
verse inQur
question h.adı̄th
ān,and and how
discusses fragments
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
Re-Evaluating Early Memorization
know
Citation: Mir, Mustansir. 2021. Why ticle what
gives details of
they were of poetry. Youngstown
doinginterpretation
of Iṣlāḥīʾs The
and accidentally main
of the Egyptian
State University,
finding
interpretation
cutQurʾānic
their hands is
calls
verse high
Youngstown,
that,
for
while official
OH 44555,
contrary
re-evaluating
thinkingand
in question called
to USA;
some
thatdiscussesmodern
they were ꜤAzīz
mmir@ysu.edu
crucial
how (Potiphar
misconceptions
aspects
cutting
that of the of
Qurʾānicthe
and Bible)—following
storygeneralizations,
of Joseph. rotetradition,
on of Qurʾān 12:31
some food item,
interpretation
Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut
the Qur ān in Medieval Muslim like
calls forfruit. Amīn Aḥsan
memorization
re-evaluating
Academic Editor: Roberto Tottoli
someIṣlāḥī
was
Mustansircall
differs
crucial her of Zulaykhā—makes
from
intertwined
Mir
aspects thisQurʾānic
the view.
in theHe argues
classical
story that an
Islamic
of Joseph. unsuccessful
the women
pedagogy with attempt to seduce
the ability him, whereup
to contemplate,
Abstract: Sūra 12 of theQurʾān;
Keywords: Qurʾān, Joseph, tells the story of the prophet
AḥsanJoseph. He is bought as a slave
heir Hands? Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs
wished to succeed where Zulaykhā had failed, and, unable to Qurʾānic
persuadeexegesis;
Joseph inIṣlāḥī; Amīn
the beginning, Iṣlāḥī; Joseph; Zulaykhā; Potiphar’s wife;
Cultures. Religions 13: 179. https:// reflect and Egyptianwomen
by anunderstand. It was
high noblewomen
official,in whose
the city,
a multidimensional very likely
wife—tradition her
callslearning peers,
her Zulaykhā—makes ridicule
experience her,
anthat saying
was
unsuccessful setat-tothat “It is clear
advance a to us
nterpretation of Qurʾān 12:31. they 1. threatened
Keywords:The Problem
Qurʾān; to kill Stated
Qurʾānic
themselves exegesis; Iṣlāḥī;Egyptian
if Joseph Amīn Aḥsan
would not listen Iṣlāḥī; Joseph;
to them, and,Zulaykhā;
to convince Potiphar’s
Joseph wife;
that Youngstown, OH 44555, USA; mmir@ysu.edu
doi.org/10.3390/rel13020179
Received: plethora tempt
of to seduce
cognitive, has him, gone
and isastray”
linguistic ridiculed
and (innā
Youngstown
by
intellectual her peersla-narāhā
State
for her failure
abilities. fī ḍalālin
University, to do mubīnin
so. She invites [versethem 30]).to a 1 A series of even
Sūra2412, May 2021 out
eligions 12: x. Egyptian Citation: Mir, Mustansir. 2021. Why
they were Innoblewomen
serious in carrying
which tells the
the
banquet,
threat,
story they deliberately
of Joseph,
hands(verses them knives,
verses cut23–29
their hands
and 2presents
relate with
howknives. the wife Thisof ar-the
Joseph before them. Upon seeing him, the women cut
ttps://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
ion: Mir, Mustansir. Academic2021. Why ticle
Editor: Halim Accepted:
gives
Egyptian
Did the27
Ranedetails high
Egyptian
July
of official Noblewomen
2021
Iṣlāḥīʾs interpretation
called
Cut
ꜤAzīz of the Qurʾānic
(Potiphar of the
30–34)
verse :
in question
Bible)—following and discusses
tradition, how we thatwill Joseph,
their hands with the knives they are holding Abstract: Sūra 12
(Qurʾān of the
12:31). Qurʾān,
According to thetells the story
generally of the prophet Joseph. He is boug
accepted
Their Hands? Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs
sity, Youngstown,
he Egyptian Noblewomen OH 44555,
Cut USA; mmir@ysu.edu
interpretation
callPublished: calls
her Zulaykhā—makes 9 August Keywords:
for re-evaluating
2021 ansome medieval
crucial aspects
unsuccessful Islam;
attempt ofprimary
Zulaykhā theto Qurʾānic
seduce education;
arranges story
by him,
an ofaJoseph. scripture;
banquet,
whereupon
Egyptian high to rote
some
official, which learning;
whose she reasoning
invites
wife—tradition those
calls and reflection;
her women;
Zulaykhā—makes an uns
Academic Editor: Roberto Tottoli Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31. exegetical view, they
1. The Problem Stateddo so because they were so awestruck by Joseph’s beauty that they did not
Hands? AmīnReceived: Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs 23 January women2022 in the city, very likely her peers, ridicule her, saying that “It is clear to us that she
Religions 12: x. kuttāb know what they were she
doing hands and each
accidentally temptguest to
cut seduce
a
their knife;
handshim, and
while is ridiculed
thinking by
that her
they peers
were for
cuttingher failure to do so. She invit
Qurʾān,
pretation of Joseph,
Qurʾān tells the
12:31.
Accepted: story1.
9 February ofThe
the
Keywords:
has
2022 prophet
Problem
gone Qurʾān; Joseph.
astray” Stated He is la-narāhā
Qurʾānic
(innā bought asIṣlāḥī;
exegesis; a slave
fī ḍalālin
Amīn In Sūra Iṣlāḥī;
Aḥsan
mubīnin 12,
[verse which
Joseph;
30]). tells A the
1Zulaykhā;
seriesstory of of
Potiphar’s
eventsJoseph, wife;
follow verses 23–29 relate how the wife of the
eceived: 24 May 2021 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays someneu- item, likeJoseph banquet, hands themthis knives,
view.and Hepresents Josephthe before
womenthem. Upon seeing him, the
ficial,
ons 12: whose
x. wife—tradition calls Egyptian
(verses
In
her Zulaykhā—makes
noblewomen
Sūra 30–34)
12, 2:
which an unsuccessful
tells the story
food at-
of Egyptian
Joseph,
fruit. Amīn
high
verses
is Aḥsan
official
23–29
presented
called
relate
Iṣlāḥī differs
ꜤAzīz
how
before
the
from
(Potiphar
wife
the
of of
the
women;
the argues that
Bible)—following tradition, we will
Accepted: 27 July Published:
2021 17 February 2022 wished their hands and,with the knives they are holding (Qurʾān 12:31). According to the genera
://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
nd is ridiculed by her peers for hertral failurewithto regard do so. She to invites
jurisdictionalthemtotosucceed a herwhere
call the Zulaykhā had
women
Zulaykhā—makes are failed,
anstunned
unsuccessful unable
by to persuade
Joseph’s
attempt Joseph
tobeauty,
seduce in the
cutsobeginning,
him, their
whereupon hands, some and beauty
exclaim
ion: Mir,
ublished: Mustansir.
9 August 2021 2021. Why Egyptian high
Zulaykhā
Academic official
arranges
Editor: called
Roberto ꜤAzīz
a banquet,
Tottoli
they
(Potiphar
to
threatened which of shethe Bible)—following
invites those exegetical
women; tradition,
view, we
they
to kill themselves if Joseph would not listen to them, and, to convince Joseph that
will
do so because they were awestruck by Joseph’s that
nives, andNoblewomen
presents Joseph
CutNote:before claims
them. in published
Upon seeing maps him, and the institu-
women cut
women in the city, very likely her peers, ridicule her, saying that “It is clear to us that she
the
emic
Egyptian
Article
Editor:
Publisher’s
Roberto Tottoli
MDPI
call herstays neutral
Zulaykhā—makes
she hands each guest athey an unsuccessful
knife;were serious
attempt
in
Josephout
carrying
to is the
seducenotthreat, aknow
him,mortal whereupon human
whatdeliberately
they they some
were doing buttheir
cut
an angel;
andhandsaccidentally
with cut their
knives. This hands
ar- while thinking that they
nives
rublisher’s
Hands? they
Amīn are holding
Aḥsan
with Iṣlāḥīʾs
regard (Qurʾān
staysto
12:31).
women
jurisdictional inAccording
tional affiliations.
the
claims city, to
24 very 1.
the Introduction
generally
likely her accepted
peers, has goneher,
ridicule astray”saying (innā that la-narāhā
“It is clear fī ḍalālin
to us like mubīnin
that she [verse 30]).1 A series of events follow
Note: MDPI neu- JosephReceived: isinpresented
May 2021 before the women; Zulaykhā, feeling some vindicated
food item, before
fruit. Amīn theAḥsan women, saysfrom
Iṣlāḥī differs thatthis Joseph
view. He will
argueseithe
that
ral Why Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut Their Hands? Amīn
o so
pretation
withbecause
of
ved: 24 May 2021
Qurʾān
regard they12:31.
to were so awestruck
jurisdictional
published maps and 1. The
hasinstitutional
gone by
Problem Joseph’s
theastray”
Accepted:
women Stated
affil- (innā
27 beauty
July 2021
are stunned
that
la-narāhāIn
ticle
they gives
did
fī ḍalālin
pre-modern
by
details
not
Joseph’s
(verses
mubīnin
of30–34)
Iṣlāḥīʾs
Muslim
beauty, her
[verse
2:interpretation of the Qurʾānic verse in question and discusses how that
cut 30]). hands,
societies,
their
wish orsome
1 A wished
be
series
primary
and
imprisoned
of
to events
exclaim
succeed follow
educational
that
where
and Zulaykhā
humiliated; practices
had failed,laid and,special
unable emphasis
to persuade Joseph in th
Article
doing
ions inand
12: x. accidentally cut their hands30–34)while thinking that2021 theyinterpretation
Article
were cutting calls for
Zulaykhā
re-evaluating crucial aspects of the Qurʾānic story of Joseph.
laims published maps and institu- (verses In Joseph
Sūra 2:
Published:
12, is which9 August
not aon tells
mortal the
human story of Joseph,
but an angel; versesarranges23–29 relate a they
banquet,
how to which
the
threatened wife to killofshe the invites those
themselves if calledwomen;
Joseph would not listen to them, and, to convince
Aḥsan
Did Iṣlāḥīʾs
pted: 27 July 2021
Interpretation
shed: 9 August 2021
iations.
://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
uit.
Why
onal of Qurʾān 12:31
Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī differs from this view. He argues that the women she hands
the Egyptian
affiliations.
Noblewomen
Why Did
Cutthe
Their
Egyptian
Hands?
Noblewomen
Amīn
Egyptian Cut Their Hands? Amī
high arranges
Zulaykhā,
Zulaykhā official
feeling
learning
called
a vindicated
banquet,Keywords:
the
ꜤAzīzto(Potiphar
before
which
Qur
Qurʾān; the
she
ān
Joseph
ofQurʾānic
women,
invites
by heart
each prays
saysguest
the Bible)—following
those
exegesis; that
in
women;
to educational
God
a knife;
Joseph
they
Iṣlāḥī;
for
tradition,
were
Amīn will either
serious
Aḥsan we
in
institutions
protection dowillJoseph;
carrying
Iṣlāḥī;
against
outZulaykhā;
thethey
the threat,Potiphar’s
katātı̄b
women’s (sing.
deliberately
wife; cutwas
kuttāb).
machinations,
their hands with kn
and G
ere Zulaykhā had failed, and,call unableher toZulaykhā—makes
persuadeNote:
Publisher’s While
Joseph MDPI in an such
the
stays neu- institutions
beginning,
unsuccessful Joseph also
grants
attempt is to taught
his
presented
seduce prayer. literacy
before
him, the and
women;
whereupon arithmetic,
some their chief emphasis on
demic Editor: Roberto Tottoli sheher hands wisheach or be guestimprisoned
a knife;Egyptian and noblewomen
humiliated; ticle gives details of Iṣlāḥīʾs interpretation of the Qurʾānic verse in question and discus
Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation ofAḥsan
themselves
isher’s Note:
rrying
Mustansir
out the
if Joseph
MDPI stays Qurʾān
Mir Iṣlāḥīʾs
12:31 Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31
would
neu-
not listen to
women
Citation:
Joseph
Joseph
Copyright:
Mir,
them,
intralthe withand,
Mustansir.
claims
city,
prays
is presented
in
regard
© 2021.
2021
published
to
very
to Why
convince
learningto jurisdictional
likely
Godbefore
by
maps
forher
the
and
Joseph
the peers,
protection
the
authors.
institu-
women;
that
Qur āntheby
ridicule
against women
Thisrote—hence
her,
the saying are stunned
Qurʾānic
women’s “Itthey
thatmachinations,isby
passage clear
interpretation were
Joseph’s usknown
to(verses
and
calls beauty,
that
for she
God ascut“Qur
30–34)—indeed,
re-evaluating theirsome ānic
hands, schools”
and exclaim
theaspects
crucial whole among
of thatthe
of
the later
Qurʾānicsūra—raises
story of Josep
with regard to threat, they deliberately
jurisdictional has gone cut
grants
their hands
astray” his (innā
prayer.
with
Westernla-narāhā knives. fī This
ḍalālin
observers ar- mubīninJoseph
(see is not
Landau
[verse a30]).
mortal1986,
1 A serieshuman p. but
of568;eventsanGünther
angel;
follow 2005, p. 642; Kadi 2006, p. 313;
ived: 24 May 2021 Did the the women
Submitted
Egyptiantional for
Noblewomen are
affiliations.
stunned
possible
Article
Cut open by Joseph’s
access beauty, cut their
sides feeling hands,
the issues and exclaim
of interpretation that of the incident ofwillthe women’s cutting of t
āḥīʾs interpretation
s in published Copyright:
maps andtheof the©Qurʾānic
institu- 2022 byverse
(verses the
30–34)inauthor.
question
2: and discusses how that Zulaykhā, vindicated before theQurʾānic
women,exegesis; says that Joseph either doJoseph; Zulaykhā; Pot
Copyright:
Mustansir
pted: 27 July © 2021
2021
Mir by authors. Their Hands? This
Joseph Qurʾānic
is
Youngstown
Amīn
publication not
Aḥsanunder Statepassage
a Iṣlāḥīʾs
mortal
Ohlander human
theUniversity,
terms (verses but30–34)—indeed,
2006, anp.
Youngstown,
Mustansir
and con- angel;
641;
MirOH 44555, Wagner the whole
USA; and
mmir@ysu.edu of the sūra—raises,
Keywords:
Lotfi 1980; Qurʾān;
Boyle be-2004). Typically, Iṣlāḥī; aAmīn
pupil Aḥsan
3 But was
Iṣlāḥī;
primed to point of
re-evaluating
lubmitted
affiliations. some
Licensee
for possible
2021 open
crucial
MDPI, aspects
access Basel, of the Qurʾānic
Switzerland.
sides
Zulaykhā, thearranges
issues
feeling Why Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut Their Hands? Amīn
story of Joseph.
ofa interpretation of theher hands,
wish
incident or be
of a number
imprisoned
the women’s of
and general
cutting humiliated;
ofdo theirand specific issues. our particular
ished: 9 August Zulaykhā
Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31. vindicated banquet, 1. The before
to which
Problem the women,
she invites
Stated says thosethatwomen;JosephEgyptian will either
noblewomen
ditions of the Creativememorize Commons the
At- entirety of
terest,the Holy
to which Book,
for we which
will consists
confine our of 114 chapters (s ūras) comprising
ublication under the terms
This article andiscon- openher
an Religions hands,
access
she 12: Abstract:
wish
x. article
hands oraeachnumber
be Sūra guest12 of
imprisoned ofathegeneral
Qurʾān,
knife; and specific
Joseph,
and Citation:
humiliated; Mir,
Joseph
tells the
Mustansir.
prays
issues.story
2021. ofto
3 But
Why
God
theour prophet protection
particular Joseph. point
He against in- the
isofbought a discussion,
aswomen’s
slave machinations, is, Why anddid Godthe women cut t
rʾānic
itions ofexegesis;
isher’s the Creative
Note:
Iṣlāḥī;
MDPI Commons
Amīn AḥsanYoungstown
distributed under the terms and
Iṣlāḥī;
tribution
terest,
Joseph
Joseph by
Joseph;
stays neu- At- https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
an
prays
is to
StateBY)
(CC which
Egyptian
presented toAḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31
6236
Zulaykhā;
University,
Godlicense
we
high for
verses,
Potiphar’s
will
before
Youngstown,
(http://crea-
confine
official,
protection
the
Individed
Sūra
wife;
whose
women;
Did
OH 12,
our
against
the
44555, which
grantsinto
discussion,
wife—tradition
Egyptian
USA;
thehandshis tells
thirty
women’s
Noblewomen is,
the
mmir@ysu.edu
prayer.
with
Why
calls Article
Cut her
story of Joseph,
similar-sized
Youngstown
the
did theknives
Zulaykhā—makes
machinations,
ꜤAzīz (Potiphar
State units
women and
verses
University,
that
cut Godan (ajzā23–29
Zulaykhā
their
unsuccessful)—a
Youngstown, relate
feat
OH
had
at-
howknown
44555, the
provided
wife
USA; as of the or hadhqa.
khatma
mmir@ysu.edu
them? .
by the Egyptian
Successful learners highThis official
earned calledpassage
the prestigious of the Bible)—following
sobriquet āfiz tradition, we will be-
ribution (CC BY)tolicense
with regard (http://crea-
jurisdictional
the hands
grants Copyright: © 2021
tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
tempt
women his with
prayer.
to the
seduce
are knives
stunned him, andauthors.
that
by is Zulaykhā
ridiculed
Joseph’s
Their Hands? byhad
beauty,AmīnherQurʾānic
provided
peers
cut
Aḥsan theirfor them?
Iṣlāḥīʾs her
hands, failure (verses
and do30–34)—indeed,
to exclaim so. She thatinvitesof them“h
the. to a ”, for
whole of the which
sūra—raises,they would be
ms
conditions of the Creative
vecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
in published
© 2021 maps andauthors.
institu-
Commons
Abstract: Sūra 12
Submitted for ofpossible
the Qurʾān,
proudly Why Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut The
open call her Zulaykhā—makes
Joseph,
access
known
tells the story of the prophet
for sides
thevery the
rest issues
of
anof unsuccessful
Abstract: Joseph.
interpretation Sūra He12 attempt
isofbought
of the Qurʾān,
the to
as aseduce
incident Joseph,him,
slave
of thetells
˙ whereupon
the
women’s story of thesome
cutting prophet Joseph. He is bought as
of their
her their lives. In high
this context, success wastoassayed according to an unsucce
yright: by the AcademicThis
JosephEditor:
banquet,Roberto
Qurʾānic
is not a mortal Tottoli
passage
hands Mustansirthem (verses
humanknives,
Mir 30–34)—indeed,
butand presents
Interpretation
anthe angel; of Joseph
Qurʾān the whole
before
12:31. of
them. the1. The
Upon Problem
sūra—raises,
seeing him, Stated
be- the women cut
l affiliations. Attribution (CC BY) license by an (https://
Egyptian
publication high the terms women
under official, whose
and in
wife—tradition
con-Religions 12:
city,
hands,
x.women,
callslikely
aofnumber her peers,
Zulaykhā—makes
by an
ofJoseph Egyptian
general ridicule
and her,
an unsuccessful saying
official,
specific whose
issues. that
at- “It our
is clear
wife—tradition
3 But particular us that
calls hershe
point Zulaykhā—makes
of in-
mitted for possible open access sides
Zulaykhā, the hands
their issues
feeling of
with interpretation
the
vindicated knives beforetheyof the
are the incident
holding (Qurʾānsaysthe12:31).
women’s
that cutting
According will to of
the
either their
generally
do accepted
cation under the creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
terms and con-
tempt
her
to seduce
ditions
Received: 24 May 2021
hands, a number
exegetical
wish or
of the
be
him,the
Creative
view,
imprisoned
and
they
perfection
is
Commons
of generaland do
has
so
gone
ridiculed
At- ofby
andhumiliated;
specific
because
memorization
astray”
her
they terest, (innā
peers
issues.
were
for
to 3
so
la-narāhā
her
which
But ourState
awestruck
(h.
failure
we
ifz
fī
tempt
˙
)to
will
particular
by
and
ḍalālin
to
do In
confine
Joseph’s
Egyptian
precise
Sūra
mubīnin
seduce
so. She
point
him,
our
beauty
high
12,
invites abidance
which
[verse
and them
discussion,
of official
is
in- OHcalled
that they
tells
30]). by
1a
ridiculed
to is,
did
Athe
Why
the
ꜤAzīz
not
story
series
by phonetic
her
did of ofevents
peers
the
(Potiphar
Joseph,
for
women
rules
her
of
verses
follow of
failure
cut
the
their
Qur
to do ānic
23–29
Bible)—following
relate
so. She how
invitesthe
th
traditi
ed
ns of the Creative 4.0/).
Commons At-
banquet,
Accepted: 27 hands
tribution
July 2021 (CCthem BY)recitation,
knives,
license and which
(verses
(http://crea- 30–34)
presents were
2 :
Joseph
hands passed
Youngstown
before
with them.
the down
banquet,
knives orally
University,
Uponthat seeing
hands him,
Zulaykhā through
Youngstown,
them the knives,
women
had generations.
44555,
and
provided
USA;
cutpresentsthem?
mmir@ysu.edu
Joseph However,
before them.for Upon various
seeing him, the wom
terest,
Joseph know toprays
which
whattothey we
God will
forconfine
were protection
doing and ouraccidentally
discussion,
against thecut is,their
women’sWhy did
hands the
machinations,
while
callwomenthinking
her cutthat
and their
God
Zulaykhā—makes they were cutting
their9 hands with thehow knives
tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). they areofholding
Zulaykhā (Qurʾān
Roberto12:31). According
theirto hands to with
the generally
the knives accepted arean
they women; unsuccessful
holding (Qurʾān 12:31).attempt to seduce
According to thehim, wherea
generally
of Joseph,Published: hadarranges aTottoli
banquet,
Mustansir whichMir she invites those
ch
tion tells the story verses August
23–29 2021
relate likethe wife
(CC BY) license (http://crea- the
Academic Editor:
hands
grants some with
his theitem,
prayer.
food knives that
fruit. Zulaykhā
Amīn Aḥsan provided
Abstract: them?
from
Sūra this
12 of view.
women the He
in
Qurʾān, argues
the city,
Joseph, that
very
tellsthethe women
likelystoryherofwere
peers,
the prophet ridicule her,
Joseph. saying
He that
is bought “It
as aisslave
clear to
Religions
called ꜤAzīz
2021, 12,
ommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
al x. exegetical
(Potiphar of theThis Bible)—followingview, they do so
tradition, because she
we they
hands were each
will had failed,the so awestruck
guest a by
knife; exegetical
Joseph’s view,
beauty they
that
www.mdpi.com/journal/religions dotheyso did
becausenot they so awestruck by Joseph’s beauty that they
yright: © 2021 by the authors. Religions
know
Publisher’s
Qurʾānic
wished
what
Note:
2021,
they
MDPI
to succeed12,neu-
passage
were
stays
x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
doing
(verses
where
and
30–34)—indeed,
Zulaykhā
accidentally
Received: 24 cut
May by and,
their
2021 an whole
hands
unable
Egyptianwhile
of to
know
the
high sūra—raises,
persuade
has
thinking
what gone
official,
they
that
Joseph
astray”
whose
were
they
be-
in the beginning,
(innā
wife—tradition
doing
were la-narāhā
cutting
and fī ḍalālin
calls
accidentally hercut mubīnin
Zulaykhā—makes
their hands [verse
while
www.mdpi.com/journa
an30]). 1 A series of ev
unsuccessful
thinking that theyat-were
makes for an unsuccessful
open access attempt totheyseduce him, whereupon Joseph
some is presented before the women;
mitted possible sides the issues
threatened of interpretation
to kill themselves of ifthe incident
Joseph would
tempt ofnot the women’s
listen
to seduce tohim,
them,
(verses cutting
and,
30–34) of convince
to 2their
:fruit. Joseph
Youngstown thatforStateherUniversity, to Youngstown, OH 44555, USA;to mmir@
ery likely some
tral with foodthat
regard item,
to like
jurisdictional fruit. to Amīn Aḥsan
Accepted:
the women Iṣlāḥī
27 July differs
are2021 from
stunned this
bysome view.
Joseph’sfoodHeand item, is ridiculed
argues
beauty, likethatcut the by
theirAmīnher
women peers
Aḥsan
hands, andIṣlāḥī failure from
differs
exclaim that dothisso. She
view. invites them
He argues thata the
ication under her peers,
the terms ridicule her,
and con- saying
hands, they a number
were “It isof
serious clear
general
in carryingusandthatout she
specific
the threat,issues.they But our
3 deliberately particular
cut their point
hands ofwith in-knives.Joseph This ar-
Religions 2022, claims
13, 179. in published
wished maps and institu-
https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13020179
to succeed where Zulaykhā Published:
had failed, 9 August
is not and, banquet,
2021unable hands
towished them
persuade
but to knives,
Zulaykhā
anJoseph
succeed and
angel;inwhere presents
arranges
the beginning,
Zulaykhā a had failed, and, unable to persuade Joseph incut
banquet, before to them.
which Upon
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/religions she seeing
invites him,
those the women
women; the beg
nā
ns ofla-narāhā
the Creative ḍalālin
fīCommons mubīnin
At- [verse
terest, 30]).
togives
1 A series
which we of events Joseph
follow a mortal human Abstract: thatSūra www.mdpi.com/journal/religions
12 of the Qurʾān, Joseph, tells the story of the p
tionalthey ticle
affiliations.
Religions
threatened
details
2021,
to kill12, will
x. confine
themselves
our discussion,
ofhttps://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
if Joseph would
of the
theiris, Why
Qurʾānic
hands
notvindicated
listen
did
verse
with
tothey
them,
the inwomen
the question
knives
she
threatened
and, to hands
cut
andtheir
they
convince
to killare
discusses
each holding
guest
themselves
Joseph
how
that(Qurʾān
Joseph12:31).
aifknife; would According
not listen to
to the
them, generally
and, to accepted
convince Jose
tion (CC BY) license (http://crea- Zulaykhā, feeling before the women, says that
by anJoseph
Egyptian will high either do whose
official, wife—tradition calls her
hands with the knives
interpretation calls for that Zulaykhā
re-evaluating
Publisher’s had
some Note:provided
crucial
MDPI stays
exegetical them?
aspects neu- of thethey
view, Qurʾānic
do so story
because of Joseph.
they were so awestruck
they were serious in carrying out the threat, they deliberately cut they their
were Joseph
handsseriouswith is presented
inknives.
carrying Thisoutbefore
ar-
the threat, they by
the women; Joseph’s beauty
deliberately cut their that theywith
hands did not
knives.
Religions 2022, 13, 179 2 of 19
reasons (not least a weak memory), many pupils could fall behind in this aspirational
vocation, and Articlewould thus satisfy themselves, and their parents, with memorizing only a
part of the Holy Book. Children of lower socio-economic status had less scope to undergo
this education, Why due Did to thethe needEgyptianto undertakeNoblewomen economic activities to Cut supportTheir their Hands?
families. Am
However, Aḥsan Muslims in Iṣlāḥīʾs
general aspire Interpretation
to learn portions of ofthe Qurʾān
Qur ān by12:31 heart for liturgical
Article purposes, i.e., performing their own prayers, and this would include all illiterate people in
traditionalMustansir MuslimMir societies.
Why Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Generally perceived CuttoTheir be rooted Hands?in overarching Amīn Islamic “scripturalism”, traditional
Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation learning of ofthe Qurʾān
Qur ān by12:31 youngsters continues to persist,
Youngstown State University, Youngstown,in conceivably more or less the
OH 44555, USA; mmir@ysu.edu
same way, in many Muslim societies today. It also developed into a symbol of Islamic
Abstract: Sūra 12 of the Qurʾān, Joseph, tells the story of the prophet Joseph. He is bought
Mustansir Mir conservatism and nationalism in by the an face
Egyptian of high
modern official,non-Islamic
whose wife—tradition ideological forces (see an unsuc
calls her Zulaykhā—makes
Boyle 2004, pp. 39–82; Tawil 2006;tempt Abbas 2018). Against this backdrop, recent pedagogical
to seduce him, and is ridiculed by her peers for her failure to do so. She invites
Youngstown Statetrends
University,tend to layOH
Youngstown, blame
44555, USA;on mmir@ysu.edu
rote learning
banquet, hands as athem markedly
knives, and ineffective
presents Joseph teaching method.
before them. For him, the w
Upon seeing
their hands
example, memorization resides in the bottom of the well-known, albeit debatable, Bloom’s with the knives they are holding (Qurʾān 12:31). According to the generally
Abstract: Sūra 12 of the Qurʾān, Joseph, tells the story of the prophet exegeticalJoseph.view,He they
is bought
do soasbecause
a slave they were so awestruck by Joseph’s beauty that th
by an Egyptian Taxonomy
Article of educational
high official, whose wife—traditionlearning objectives as an
calls her Zulaykhā—makes
know what they were
well as the revised
unsuccessful at-
doing and accidentally
version of the taxonomy,
cut their hands while thinking that they we
tempt to seducewhich him, and was put forward
is ridiculed by her peers by aforgroup of
her failure scholars
to do so. in
She 2001
invites (Bloom
them
some food item, like fruit. Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī to a 1956; Harrow 1972;
differs from thiscf. Ander-
view. He argues that th
Whybanquet,Did handssontheand
them Egyptian
knives,Krathwohl
and presents2001). Noblewomen
Joseph This them.
before paper Upon
wished seeks Cut
toseeing tohim,
succeed
Their
re-evaluate
the women
where Zulaykhā
Hands?
the
cut hadefficiency Amīn
failed, and,of the educational
unable to persuade Joseph in the b
their hands with the knives related
they are holding (Qurʾān 12:31).the
Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs
practices Interpretation to memorizing
exegetical view, they do so because they were so awestruck by
of According
Qurʾān
theyQur
they
threatened
Joseph’s
were
to the
ān intogenerally
12:31
medieval accepted
kill themselves
beautyinthat
serious they did
carrying
Muslim
outnot
if Joseph primary
the responded
would not listenschools.
threat, they deliberately
to them,Itand,
alsoto convince J
cut their hands with knive
opens the vista to explore the extent to which such pedagogies to the educational
d the Egyptian Noblewomen know what they were doing
Mustansir
some food Miritem,and
Cut
societal
like fruit.
andTheir
accidentally
Amīn needs
Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī ofHands?
cut their handsAmīn
the
differstime.from The
while
this
thinking
ticle gives
paper
view. He
thatofthey
details
indicates
argues that
wereinterpretation
Iṣlāḥīʾs
the
cutting
that
women
of the Qurʾānic verse in question and discusse
a healthy memorization of the
interpretation calls for re-evaluating some crucial aspects of the Qurʾānic story of Joseph
ṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation wishedof Qurʾān
Qur
to succeed ān was
where 12:31
Zulaykhā highly valued
had failed, and,and unable practiced
to persuade inJoseph
medieval Islam, which, according to many spe-
in the beginning,
they threatenedcialists, covered the period between
to kill themselves if
YoungstownJoseph Statewould not
University, listen to
Youngstown, the third/ninth
them,
Keywords: OHand, to
44555, convince
USA; and
Joseph
mmir@ysu.edu
Qurʾān; Qurʾānic the
that seventh/thirteenth
exegesis; Iṣlāḥī; Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī; centuries
Joseph; Zulaykhā; Potip
they were serious in carrying out the threat, they deliberately
(see Saunders 2002; Bray 2006; von Grunebaum 2010; Lambton cut their
Egyptian hands with
noblewomen knives. This ar- 2013). For reasons beyond
Abstract: Sūra
ticle gives details of Iṣlāḥīʾs interpretation of 12
theofQurʾānic
Citation: Mir, Mustansir.
the Qurʾān, Joseph, tells the story of the prophet Joseph. He is bought as a slave
2021. Why verse in question and discusses how that
the scope of theEgyptian
by an
interpretation calls for re-evaluating
present
some crucial high article,
official,
aspects
this
whose practice
wife—tradition started
story of calls
to
herlose its rigorous
Zulaykhā—makes antraditions
unsuccessful at-afterward
Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut of the Qurʾānic Joseph.
Youngstown State University, Youngstown,and OH tended,
44555, USA;
temptsince
mmir@ysu.edu
to the
seduce late
him,
Their Hands? Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs andmedieval
is ridiculed period
by her (1250–1500
peers for her failureCE), to dotoso.lay
She utmost
invites emphasis
them to a on
Keywords: Qurʾān; memorization, banquet,
Qurʾānic exegesis; asIṣlāḥī;
Interpretation such.
hands them
Amīn
of Qurʾān knives,Iṣlāḥī;
Aḥsan
12:31. and1.presents
Joseph;
The Problem Joseph Stated
Zulaykhā; before them. wife;
Potiphar’s Upon seeing him, the women cut
Egyptian noblewomenWhile their
wehands
Religions 12: x. with the knives they are holding (Qurʾān 12:31). According to the generally accepted
should not look an in unsuccessful
the past for ready-made answers for questions asked byhow the w
by an Egyptian high official, whose wife—tradition calls her Zulaykhā—makes In Sūra at-12, which tells the story of Joseph, verses 23–29 relate
exegetical view, they do so because they were so awestruck by Joseph’s beauty that they did not
Citation: Mir, Mustansir. 2021. Why
present-day school systems,
tempt to seduce him, and is ridiculed by her peers for her failure to do so. She invites them to a investigating
Egyptian the
high history
official of
called ꜤAzīz
such questions
(Potiphar of could
the definitely
Bible)—following tradition
Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut know what they were doing and accidentally cut their hands while thinking that they were cutting
banquet, hands them knives, and presents Joseph before them. Upon seeing him, call
the her
women Zulaykhā—makes
cut an unsuccessful attempt
1 to seduce him, whereup
help us understandAcademic
some food Editor: them
Roberto
item, better,
likeTottoli
fruit. Amīn andAḥsanthusIṣlāḥī deal withfrom them thismore
view. effectively.
He argues that The pedagogical
in thediffers the women
their hands with the knives they are holding (Qurʾān 12:31). According to the generally women accepted city, very likely her peers, ridicule her, saying that “It is clear to u
Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31. 1. The Problem issues
Statedof the contemporary
wished to succeed where educational
Zulaykhā hadapparatuses
hasthey gone failed, and, unable in many
to persuade MuslimJoseph countries
(innā la-narāhā fī ḍalālin mubīnin [verse are
in the beginning, usually
didastray” 30]). 1 A series of even
Religions 12: x. exegetical view, they do so because they were so Received: awestruck
they
24 May
threatened
by 2021
Joseph’s beauty that
to ofkill “abortive”
themselves if Joseph
not
would
In Sūra ascribed
12, which to
tells persistence
the story of Joseph, verses 23–29
(verses medieval
relate
30–34) 2: not
how the listen
practices
wife toofthem,
in
the and, tosystems.
such convince Joseph that
However, this
know what they were doing and accidentally cut their
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx hands
Accepted: while
27 July 2021thinking that they were cutting
Egyptian high official calledtheyꜤAzīz
were (Potiphar
serious in carrying
of the out the threat, they tradition,
Bible)—following deliberatelywe cutwill
their hands with knives. This ar-
hypothesis and
Published: the
9 August lingering
2021
some food item, like fruit. Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī differs from this view. He argues that the presumptions Zulaykhā related to it are based on
women arranges a banquet, to which she invites those women; defective modern
call her Zulaykhā—makesticle angives details of Iṣlāḥīʾs interpretation ofhim,
the Qurʾānic verse some
in question and discusses how that
Academic Editor: wished
Robertoto succeed where Zulaykhā applications
Tottoli had failed, and, unable ofunsuccessful
such
interpretation medieval
to persuade
calls for
attempt to seduce
Josepheducational she hands
in the beginning,
re-evaluating some crucial
whereupon
practices
each guestand
aspects of the inaccurate
a knife;
Qurʾānic conceptions of how
story of Joseph.
women in the city, very likely her peers,
Publisher’s ridicule
Note: MDPI stays her,
neu- saying that Joseph “It is
is clear
presentedto us that
before she the women;
they threatened to kill themselves if these
Joseph would not
practices listenare to them,
described and, to convince
by the Joseph
sources.that of premodern kuttāb learning,
has gone astray” (innā la-narāhā ḍalālin 1 A series ofSpeaking
tral withfī regard to mubīnin [verse 30]).
they were serious in carrying out the threat, they deliberately
jurisdictional
cut theirQurʾānic
hands with knives. theThis women areevents
ar- Aḥsan stunned followby Joseph’s beauty, cut their hands, and exclaim
Accepted: 27 July 2021 (verses 30–34) Landau,
2: for example,
Keywords:
claims in Qurʾān;
published states:
maps and institu- exegesis; Iṣlāḥī; Amīn Iṣlāḥī; Joseph; Zulaykhā; Potiphar’s wife;
Joseph is not a mortal human but an angel;
ticle gives details of Iṣlāḥīʾs interpretation of the Qurʾānic
Egyptian verse in question and discusses how that
noblewomen
Published: 9 August 2021 Zulaykhāsome
interpretation calls for re-evaluating arranges
Sincea banquet,
crucial of to
independent
aspects thewhich shestory
invites
thinking
Qurʾānic thosefrowned
of was
Joseph. women; upon,
Zulaykhā, feeling as
vindicated
liable tobefore
leadthe
to women, says that Joseph will eithe
the weakening
she hands each guest a knife; her wish or be imprisoned and humiliated;
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu- Did the Egyptian
Joseph
Noblewomen Cut
is presented
of belief and disobedience, learning
before the women;
by rote was customary. This method was,
Keywords: Qurʾān; Qurʾānic exegesis; Iṣlāḥī; Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī; Joseph
Joseph; Zulaykhā; Potiphar’s prays
wife; to God for protection against the women’s machinations, and
tral with regard to jurisdictional Their Hands? Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs to a large extent, self-defeating, as it meant studying
Egyptian noblewomen the women are stunned by Joseph’s beauty, cut their hands, grantsand exclaim
his prayer. that difficult subject-matter in a
claims in published maps and institu- Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31. 1. The Problem Stated
sir. 2021. Why
Joseph
Religions 12: x.
is not a barely understood language. Literary
mortal human
Copyright: but
© an
2021 byangel;
the authors. Arabic
This Qurʾānic was (verses
passage hardly30–34)—indeed,
known eventhe bywhole
Arabof the sūra—raises
tional affiliations. In before
Sūra
blewomen Cut Zulaykhā, feeling
vindicated
Submitted
children, not to12, the
for possible which
speak women,
open tellssays
access
of the that
story
non-Arabsides ofthe
JosephJoseph,
issues
Muslims. verses
will either 23–29 relateofhow
do
of (Landau
interpretation the wife of
1986,thep.incident
568. Seeof the
thewomen’s cutting of
also
Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs her wish or be imprisoned Egyptian
andunder
publication highthe official
humiliated; called ꜤAzīzhands,
terms and con- (Potiphar of theof
a number Bible)—following tradition,
general and specific issues.we will
3 But our particular point o
Hassim call 2010,
ditionsher pp. 162–63) an unsuccessful
of theZulaykhā—makes
Creative Commons At- attempt to seduce him, whereupon some
ān 12:31. 1. The Problem Academic Joseph
Stated Editor: prays
Roberto to God for protection against the women’s terest,
Tottoli machinations,
to whichandwe God
will confine our discussion, is, Why did the women cut
women inBY)
the city,(http://crea-
very likely her peers, ridicule her, saying that “It is clear
grants his prayer.
In Sūra 12, which tells the story of Joseph, The tribution
negative (CC
verses
license
outlook
23–29 relate on traditional hands Muslim primary
of themubīnin [versethat
with the knives education
Zulaykhā hadisto us that she
further
provided enhanced
them?
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Received: 24
0/xxxxx This
May Qurʾānic
2021 has gone30–34)—indeed,
astray” (innā how
passagetivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
(verses
the wife
la-narāhā
the whole ḍalālin
fī of the sūra—raises, be- 30]). A series of events follow
1
Egyptian high official called ꜤAzīz by accounts
(Potiphar of in
the the autobiographies
Bible)—following
(verses 30–34) 2: tradition, of modernist
we will Muslim thinkers, such as the leading
Submitted for possible open access Accepted: 27 sides the issues of interpretation
July 2021 of the incident of the women’s cutting of their
call her Zulaykhā—makes
publication under the terms and con- Published: hands,
an unsuccessful
Egyptian attempt
intellectual to seduce
Taha him,
Hussein whereupon
(1889–1973some CE), and Fatima al-Mernissi (1940–2015 CE),
erto Tottoli a number of general
9 August 2021 and specific
Zulaykhā arrangesissues. 3 But our to
a banquet, particular
which she point of in-
invites those women;
women in theAt-city, very likely her peers, ridicule her, saying that “It is clear to us that she
ditions of the Creative Commons a prominent
terest, to which Moroccan
we will confine feminist
our discussion,
she hands each guestis, awriter,
Why did
knife; who themselves
the women cut theirunderwent that type of traditional
1 has
tribution (CC BY) gone
license astray”
(http://crea- (innā la-narāhā
Publisher’shands
Note: MDPI
ḍalālin
fī stays mubīnin [verse 30]).1 A series of events follow
withMuslimtheneu- education.
knives thatJoseph
ZulaykhāHowever,had provided
is presented the
beforemostthe critical
them? women; position in this regard is perhaps represented
1 (verses 30–34) : tral with regard to jurisdictional
2
Religions 2021, 12, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journ
bytoBassam theanwomen are stunned by Joseph’s beauty, cut their hands, and exclaim
Islam, that
021 Zulaykhā arranges a banquet,
claims in published maps and which sheTibi,
institu- invites advocate
those women; of liberalism
and progressivism within who writes:
she hands each guest a knife;
Muslim children Zulaykhā,go to the
feeling Qur’anbefore
vindicated school, as did Isays
the women, myself in Damascus,
that Joseph will either and
do learn
DPI stays neu- Joseph is presented before the women;
o jurisdictional how to her
read wish
and or be
write imprisoned
using theand humiliated;
text of the Qur’an. They are too young to grasp
the women are stunned by Joseph’s beauty, Joseph cut their hands,
prays and for
to God exclaim that against the women’s machinations, and God
protection
aps and institu-
Religions 2021, 12, x.Joseph is not a mortal human but an
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx itsangel;
complex meaning, but nonetheless are compelled to memorize the text even
www.mdpi.com/journal/religions
grants his prayer.
Zulaykhā, feeling Copyright:vindicated
© 2021 by the before though
authors.the women,they often
Thissays thatdo
Qurʾānic not understand
Joseph
passage will do its content.
either30–34)—indeed,
(verses theThis
wholerote learning
of the of the
sūra—raises, be-Qur’an
her wish orSubmittedbe imprisoned
for possibleandopenhumiliated;
is transmitted
access sides theto issues
otherofrealms of knowledge.
interpretation (Tibi
of the incident of 2009, pp. 49–52—esp.
the women’s cutting of theirat p. 49)
Joseph prays to Godunder
publication for the
protection
terms and con- against thehands,
women’s machinations,
a number of general andandGodspecific issues.3 But our particular point of in-
grants his prayer.ditions of the Creative Commons At-
terest, to which we will confine our discussion, is, Why did the women cut their
by the authors. This Qurʾānic passage
tribution (CC BY) (verses 30–34)—indeed,hands
license (http://crea- the whole
withof the the sūra—raises,
knives be-
that Zulaykhā had provided them?
le open access sides the issues of interpretation of the incident of the women’s cutting of their
terms and con- hands, a number of general and specific issues.3 But our particular point of in-
e Commons At-
terest, to which we will confine our discussion, is, Why did the women cut their
nse (http://crea-
hands with the knives that Zulaykhā had provided them?
nses/by/4.0/).
Religions 2022, 13, 179 3 of 19
According to some, the large-scale adoption of such a traditional teaching method

led to stagnation of Muslim intellectualism. Some went so far as to blame the per-
ceived “discomfiture” of Arab Spring of 21st century on that traditional type of education
(Huff 2017, p. 171); conversely, independent, critical, and entrepreneurial thinking are usu-
ally linked with positive socio-political values as democracy and freedom of speech.2 This
tendency, however, approached the issue at stake with the a priori assumption that rote
learning is a pedagogical malpractice—an idea that has only been a mainstream consensus
among modern Western curriculum designers since the 1960s, although some outliers had
criticized it for centuries.3
Conversely, the majority of Western studies by historians, ethnographers and an-
thropologists since the start of the present millennium usually refer commendably to the
Article oral/aural characteristics of the classical Islamic pedagogies—even if practiced in modern
settings (Nelson 2001; Messick 1992). Generally, the relevant anthropological studies in the
Why Did the Egyptian West show Noblewomen
no reservation in expressing Cut Their fondness Hands? for orality Amīn and memorization as integral
Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31 features of learning the Qur ān in traditional learning contexts (Ware 2014; Boyle 2006;
Nelson 2001). Rosowsky (2008) went so far as to argue that pure memorization of the
Mustansir Mir Muslim Holy Book by non-Arabic speaking pupils in the UK was a main reason for them
to cultivate the faculty of liturgical literacy, which in turn imparted an array of constructive
Youngstown
learning State
practices. 4 Some recent
University, Youngstown, OH 44555, USA; mmir@ysu.edu
writings focused on a so-called ‘Islamic soundscape’ that
is typically generated by stylized recitals, underlining the role of somatic movements and
observances related to the spiritual
by an Egyptian high official, whose wife—tradition calls her Zulaykhā—makes ‘voice’ in summoning deific attendance
an unsuccessful at- and enabling
worshipful
tempt to seduce him, auscultation
and is ridiculed (Sabki
by herand peersHardaker
for her failure 2013;
to do Harris 2014;them
so. She invites Hirschkind
to a 2006; Graham
banquet, hands them2006;
and Kermani knives,Gade and presents2006;Joseph Eisenlohr before them. 2018;Upon de seeing
Vrieshim, 2008). the women
This iscutin addition to recent
their hands with the knives they are holding (Qurʾān 12:31). According to the generally accepted
empirical advances in understanding traditional and non-Western forms of pedagogy.
There has been a trend of Western appreciation of the lost art of learning by rote,
know what they were doing and accidentally cut their hands while thinking that they were cutting
some food item, its
lamenting like abandonment
fruit. Amīn Aḥsan for Iṣlāḥīthe sake
differs from ofthis new view.educational
He argues that fads. However, such accounts
the women
are often
wished to succeedromanticized.
where Zulaykhā Norhad do failed,they and,pay unable adequate
to persuade attention
Joseph in the to the potential adverse effects
beginning,
theyofthreatened
ritualized, to killdidactical
themselves ifapproachesJoseph would not (Sahinlisten to2018, them, and,p. 4). to convince
The critical Joseph tendency,
that on the other
they were serious in carrying out the threat, they deliberately cut their hands with knives. This ar-
hand, projects the issues of modern-day rote learning to medieval Muslim primary teaching
ticle gives details of Iṣlāḥīʾs interpretation of the Qurʾānic verse in question and discusses how that
and fails calls
interpretation to appreciate
for re-evaluating thesome peculiarcrucial features
aspects of the ofQurʾānic
the latter, storyor to see it in the wider educational
of Joseph.
context of different times and places. Generally, the intrinsic characteristics of traditional
IslamicQurʾān;
Keywords: pedagogy Qurʾānichave exegesis; been
Iṣlāḥī;explored,
Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī; albeit partly,
Joseph; by only
Zulaykhā; a very
Potiphar’s wife; limited number of
Egyptian noblewomen
Western surveys (Gent 2018).
Did the Egyptian Citation: Mir, Mustansir.Noblewomen
2021. Why
In what Cut Their
follows, the Hands?
paper attempts Amīn to redefine and re-evaluate the practice of learning
n IṣlāḥīʾsTheirInterpretation
Hands? Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs of Qurʾān 12:31
the Qur ān by heart, which was far more than just repeating, after the schoolmaster, a
ticle
Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31. 1. daily
The morsel
Problem of
Stated the holy text until it took root in students’ memory. The paper also tries
Religions 12: x.
r Mir to In
identify
Sūra 12, the which nuances
tells the relatedstory of Joseph, to such versesa practice23–29 relate in the howlight the wifeof broader
of the cultural milieus.
Why Did the Egyptian Noblewomen
Egyptian high official
In particular, thisCutcalled
paper Their
ꜤAzīz Hands?
(Potiphar
responds toofclaims Amīn
in modern scholarship tradition, we will (Western and Muslim)
call her Zulaykhā—makes an unsuccessful attempt to seduce him, whereupon some
Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs Youngstown
Academic
Article Interpretation
State Tottoli
Editor: Roberto
womenof
that early
University, Youngstown,
Qurʾān
QurUSA;
OH 44555,
in the
ānic
city, very likely 12:31
memorization
mmir@ysu.edu was a mere rote exercise that had no bearing whatsoever
her peers, ridicule her, saying that “It is clear to us that she
on understanding
hasJoseph,
gone tells
astray” and
(innāofla-narāhā reasoning.
fī ḍalālin Applying
mubīnin [verse theoretical analysis of classical scholars and
Why Did the 12 ofEgyptian Noblewomen Cut Their as a30]).
Hands? slave A series Amīnof events follow
1
Abstract:
Received: 24 May Sūra
2021 the Qurʾān, the story the prophet Joseph. He is bought
ustansir Mir by an
Accepted: 27 Egyptian
critical
(verses 30–34)reading
2: of primary
July 2021 high official, whose wife—tradition calls her Zulaykhā—makes an unsuccessful at-
and secondary Islamic texts, the paper maintains that the
Aḥsan temptIṣlāḥīʾs
Published: 9 to seduce him, Interpretation
August 2021 memorization
and is ridiculedZulaykhā peers of
by herarranges of the
for aherQurʾān
Qur
banquet,
failure to ān
to do was
which12:31
so. She intertwined
sheinvites
invitesthem those in the
to women;
a classical Islamic pedagogy with the
banquet,Youngstown
hands them State ability
University,
knives, and she to
hands
Youngstown,
presents
Article contemplate,
each
Joseph guestUSA;
OH before
44555, athem.
knife;reflect
mmir@ysu.edu
Upon seeing and understand.
him, the women cutAs we shall see, certain pedagogies and
Publisher’s
theirMir Note: MDPI
hands withstays
the neu-
knives they Joseph
are is presented
holding (Qurʾān 12:31). before the women;
According to the generally accepted
Mustansir recitation techniques were applied to ensure a minimum of comprehension. The article
tral with regard
exegetical
claims in published
to jurisdictional
Abstract:
view,
maps
Sūrado
they
and
12so
institu-
of because Why
the Qurʾān,
the they
investigates
wereDid
Joseph,
women tells
are
the
the the
story of
stunned
so awestruck
divergent
by
byEgyptian
the prophet
Joseph’s
Joseph’s
perspectives
Joseph.
beauty,
beauty Noblewomen
that He
cut istheir
they
which
bought
existedat-and Cut
as a slave
did hands,
not and exclaim that
interacted Their Hands?
in medieval Amīn
Islamic
know what by an Egyptian
they were doing high andofficial, whose
Joseph
accidentally is wife—tradition
notcutatheir
mortal hands calls
human
while herbut Zulaykhā—makes
an angel;
thinking that they were an unsuccessful
cutting
Article
some food tempt to like
item, seduce Youngstown
him,
fruit. Amīn and Aḥsan
scholastic
is State
Zulaykhā,
Aḥsan
University,
ridiculed
Iṣlāḥī by Iṣlāḥīʾs
circles
feeling regarding
Youngstown,
her vindicated
differs peers
from
OH
for her
this Interpretation
view. the
44555,
failure
before He thememorization
USA;to dommir@ysu.edu
women,
Article
argues so.
that She the invites
says of
of
that
women the
them Qurʾān
JosephtoQur
a willān in12:31
either (early)
do childhood. This is
wished to banquet,
succeedhands where them complemented
knives,
Zulaykhā herhad and
wish presents
or be
failed, by
Joseph
imprisoned
and, examination
unable before and them.
to persuade of the
Upon
humiliated;
Joseph ininternal
seeing thehim, thescholarly
beginning, women cut discourse among Muslim theorists,
Why Didthey the Egyptian
their
threatened hands with
to kill the Noblewomen
Abstract:
themselves
Sūra 12 of the Qurʾān, Joseph,
knives
jurists they
Joseph
ifMustansir
Joseph are
prays
and holding
would to not
Mir God
polymaths (QurʾānCut
for
listen
tellsTheir
12:31).
protection
towho
the story
According
them,debated Why
against
and,
of Hands?
the prophet
to the
the
the
to convince Did
women’s
appropriate
Joseph the
Amīn
Joseph.
generally
HeEgyptian
accepted
is bought as a slaveNoblewomen Cut Th
machinations,
that age in andwhichGodyoung Muslims should
by an Egyptian high official, whose wife—tradition calls her Zulaykhā—makes an unsuccessful at-
they were exegetical
serious in view, they out
carrying do so because
grants
the they
histhey
threat, prayer.were so awestruck
deliberately cut theirby Joseph’s
hands withbeautyknives. that
Thisthey
ar-to did not
Aḥsan Copyright: Iṣlāḥīʾs ©
ticle gives know
2021 Interpretation
by what
detailsthe of they
authors.
Iṣlāḥīʾswere
memorize
tempt to seduce him,
This
doing and
interpretation
of
Qurʾānic
theQurʾān
and
accidentally
Qur
of the Qurʾānic
ān.
is ridiculed by
passage (verses
cut their
verse
12:31
They
hands
her peersAḥsan
also
30–34)—indeed,
while and
in question
debated
for her failure
thinking
discusses
Iṣlāḥīʾs
where
thethey
that whole
howwerethat
place
to do so. She invites
of cutting Interpretation
the
the sūra—raises, be-
memorization
them to a ofthe
of Qurʾān
Qur ān 12:31
Submitted for possible
some food
interpretation calls
banquet, among
hands
access like fruit.sides
open item,
for re-evaluatingAmīn some
other
them
the issues
Aḥsan
crucial
subjects
knives, and to
presents
of interpretation
Iṣlāḥī
aspects differs
of thefrom
be
Qurʾānic
taught
Youngstown
Joseph
of view.
this
beforein
the incident
story
childhood
Statethem.
HeJoseph.
of
University,
argues
Upon
of the and
Youngstown,
seeing
thatwomen’s
the women adolescence.
him, OH
the 44555,
women
cutting of their
USA;
cutmmir@ysu.edu
Mustansir Mir publication under the terms

wished toand con-their
succeed
hands with
where hands, Thethe
Zulaykhā
knives they
a article
number
had failed, then
of and,
aremakes
general
holding (Qurʾān
unable use
andtospecific
persuade of12:31).
Mustansirrelevant
issues.
Joseph
According
3Mir
But
in the
to the generally
classical
ourbeginning,
particular literature accepted
point of in- to shed light on the posi-
ditions of the Creative Commons At-exegetical view, they do so because they were Abstract: Sūra 12 of
so awestruck bythe Qurʾān,
Joseph’s Joseph,that
beauty tellsthey
the did
storynotof the prophet Joseph. He is bought as a slave
they threatened
Keywords: Qurʾān; Qurʾānic exegesis; to kill tions Iṣlāḥī;
terest,
themselves taken
toifwhich by Aḥsan
Joseph
Amīn Muslim
we
wouldwillIṣlāḥī;scholars
confine
not listen our
to them,
Joseph; Zulaykhā;
bycut an their from
discussion,
Egyptian
and, various
to
high
is, Why
convince
Potiphar’s
official, intellectual
did
Joseph
wife; the
whose
women
that tendencies
cut
calls her(from
their conservative
tribution (CC BY) license (http://crea-know what they were doing and accidentally hands while thinking thatwife—tradition
they were cutting Zulaykhā—makes an unsuccessful at
Egyptianthey were
noblewomen serious State
Youngstown hands
in carrying outwith
traditionists
University, the
the threat,
Youngstown,and knives
they that USA;
pedagogues
OH 44555, Zulaykhā
deliberately cutto had
their
liberal
mmir@ysu.edu provided
hands with them?
thinkers knives.and This philosophers)
ar- Youngstown Stateregarding
University, the position
Youngstown, OH 44555, them
USA; mmi
tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). some food tempt to seduce him,
item, like fruit. Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī differs from this view. He argues that the women and is ridiculed by her peers for her failure to do so. She invites to a
Mustansir. 2021. Why ticle gives details of Iṣlāḥīʾs interpretation of the Qurʾānic verse in question and discusses how that
wishedof to understanding
succeed where Zulaykhā and reflection
had banquet,
failed, and,in post-kuttāb
hands
unable them knives,
to persuade education
and
Josephpresents
in thein the
Joseph medieval
before them. Islamic
beginning, Upon seeingcultures.
him, the women cu
an Noblewomen Cut interpretation calls for re-evaluating some crucial aspects of the Qurʾānic story of Joseph.
Abstract: Sūra 12 of the Qurʾān, Joseph, tells the story of the prophet Joseph. He is bought as a Abstract: slave Sūra 12 of the Qurʾān, Joseph, tells the story of the
they threatened to kill themselves if Joseph their would hands with to
not listen thethem,
knives they
and, to are holding
convince (Qurʾān
Joseph that12:31). According to the generally accepted
Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs by an Egyptian high official, whose wife—tradition calls her Zulaykhā—makes an unsuccessful by at-
an Egyptian high official, whose wife—tradition calls h
they were serious in carrying out the threat,exegetical
they view, they
deliberately cut do so hands
their becausewiththey were This
knives. so awestruck
ar- by Joseph’s beauty that they did no
of Qurʾān 12:31. Keywords:
1. The Problem tempt Qurʾān;
Stated Qurʾānic
to seduce exegesis;
him, and Iṣlāḥī; Amīn
is ridiculed by herAḥsan
peersIṣlāḥī;
for herJoseph;
failureZulaykhā;
to do so. Potiphar’s
She inviteswife;
themtempt
to a to seduce him, and is ridiculed by her peers for he
ticle gives details of Iṣlāḥīʾs interpretation know
of the what they
Qurʾānic were
verse in doing
questionandand
accidentally
discusses cut
how their
thathands while thinking that they were cutting
In Egyptian
Religions 2021, Sūra 12,noblewomen
banquet,
which hands
tellsthem knives,
the story
callsof
12, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
interpretation
and presents
forJoseph,
Joseph
verses
re-evaluating 23–29
some
before them.
relate
some
crucial how
food
Upon
aspects
seeing
thethe
item,
of wife
like
him,
of
fruit.
Qurʾānic thethe women
Amīn
storyAḥsan
banquet,
cut hands them knives, and presents Joseph before
Iṣlāḥī differs from this view. He argues that the women
of Joseph.
/10.3390/xxxxx
tion: Mir, Mustansir. 2021. Why
Egyptian high their handscalled
official ꜤAzīz
with the knives they areof
(Potiphar holding (Qurʾān 12:31). According
the Bible)—following tradition, to we
the generally
will accepted
their hands with the knives they are holding (Qurʾān 12:3
wished to succeed where Zulaykhā had failed, and, unable to persuade Joseph in the beginning
the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut exegetical view, they do so because attempt
they weretososeduce
awestruck by whereupon
Joseph’s beauty that they did exegetical
not view, they do so because they were so awestru
or: Roberto Tottoli
call her Zulaykhā—makes Keywords:an unsuccessful
Qurʾān; Qurʾānic exegesis; Iṣlāḥī;they
Amīnhim,
threatened
Aḥsan to kill
Iṣlāḥī; some
themselves
Joseph; if Joseph
Zulaykhā; wouldwife;
Potiphar’s not listen to them, and, to convince Joseph tha
r Hands? Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs know what they were doing and accidentally cut their hands while thinking that they were cutting know what they were doing and accidentally cut their han
Religions 2022, 13, 179 4 of 19
The main finding here is that analytical analysis and reflection were integral features of
post-kuttāb education, and that pupils in the kuttāb were being prepared through ‘meaning-
ful’ rote learning to fit successfully in that dynamic higher education, where they could
Article
make utmost use of the (sacred) material which they had memorized in their early years.
Why
The article alsoDid
looksthe Egyptian
into how Noblewomen
relevant medieval Muslim writings Cutwere Their
inspiredHands?
by olderAmīn
Article reportsAḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs
on an earlier Interpretation
and a more effective learning of ofthe
Qurʾān
Qur ān, and 12:31how they used such
retrospective perceptions to make the case in their time for a healthier memorization prac-
Why Did the Egyptian
tice. InMustansir
additionNoblewomen
to classical literaryCut
Mir
Their
accounts, Hands?
the article examinesAmīn fragments of medieval
Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾspoetry
Interpretation
and excerpts
Article fromof Qurʾān
the Qur ān 12:31
and h. adı̄th as well as their interpretations by classical
and modern pedagogues and theorists.Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH 44555, USA; mmir@ysu.edu
Mustansir Mir
Abstract: Sūra 12 of the Qurʾān, Joseph, tells the story of the prophet Joseph. He is bought as a
Aḥsan
2. Medieval Iṣlāḥīʾs
Perspectives Interpretation
on Early Memorization
by an Egyptian oftheQurʾān
high official, of
whose Qur ān 12:31
wife—tradition calls her Zulaykhā—makes an unsuccessf
Youngstown State University, Youngstown, OH 44555, USA; mmir@ysu.edu
Medieval Muslim pedagogues tempt toand scholars
seduce him, andfrom multidisciplinary
is ridiculed backgrounds
by her peers for her failure to do so. laid
She invites them
Mustansir on Mirearly education, banquet, hands them knives, and presents Joseph before them. Upon seeing him, the wome
much Abstract:emphasis Sūra 12Article of the Qurʾān, Joseph, tells the likeningstory of the theprophet child’s mind
Joseph. Heto a blank
is bought as aslate slavethat is naturally
their hands with the knives they are holding (Qurʾān 12:31). According to the generally acce
primed by an Egyptian to be impressed high official, whose by concepts wife—tradition and information—a
calls her Zulaykhā—makes drift an already
unsuccessful grounded
at- in Greek
philosophy. In medieval civilizations,
tempt to seduce Why
him, and is Did ridiculed the
exegetical
Youngstown
by her
know what they
Egyptian
peers
view,State
there for
they
University,
were
her was failure
doing
Noblewomen
do so Youngstown,
no
because theyOH
to
and more
do so.
accidentally
She
were
valuable invites
so awestruck
44555, USA;
cut their
them Cut
mmir@ysu.edu
material to
hands while
a Their
by Joseph’s beauty that they di
tothinking
be taught Hands?
that they were cu
to banquet,
youngsters hands them knives, and presents Joseph before them. Upon seeing him, the women cut
Aḥsan
than holy scriptures, Iṣlāḥīʾs some
Abstract: food Interpretation
including
item,12like
Sūra of the the
fruit. Qurʾān, Bible
Amīn Aḥsan
Joseph, and of the
Iṣlāḥī
tells Qurʾān
the Qur
differs
story of ān
fromthein 12:31
this Christendom
prophet view. He argues
Joseph. He is that bought theas wo a
Did the Egyptian Noblewomen and
their hands
the Cut
Islamic
with the Their
world
knives they Hands? are holding (Qurʾān
respectively wished
by an Egyptian toAmīn succeed
(Günther
12:31).
Religions
high where
According
2006,
official,2021,
Zulaykhā 12,
whosep.
to the
x FOR had
370). PEER generally
failed,
wife—tradition REVIEW
In and,
the
accepted
unable
Muslim
calls herto persuade
conscience,
Zulaykhā—makes Joseph an in unsuccess
the begin
they threatened
to seducetoword kill themselves if Joseph would notfor listen
her to them,toand, to convince Joseph
n Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation oftheQurʾān knowQurwhat ānthey is12:31 the
Mustansir
were final
doing and and
Miraccidentallyundisputable
tempt
they
banquet,
cut their hands while
were hands seriousthem
him,
in carrying
and ofis God;
knives,out
thinkingitthat
ridiculed
andthe
is they
by
threat, they
presents
also
her
Joseph
peers
were the ultimate
cutting
deliberately
before them.
failure
cut Upon
source
their hands
do so.
seeingwith
of invites
She
him,knives. the wom
them
Th
knowledge
some food item, andlikeimpetus fruit. Amīn for Aḥsan its
ticle
pursuit.
Iṣlāḥī
gives
differsWith
details
from this
of Iṣlāḥīʾs
that view. in
interpretation
Hemind, arguesmedieval
of
that the women
the Qurʾānic
Muslim
verse in question
theorists and discusses how
their hands with the knives they are holding (Qurʾān 2. Traditional12:31). According MuslimtoInterpretation the generally acc o
r Mir Article tended wishedto to accentuate
succeed where the Zulaykhā superlative had failed, merits and, unable
Youngstown to
of re-evaluating persuade
learning
State University, Joseph
the holy
Youngstown,in the text. beginning,
OH However,
44555, USA; mmir@ysu.edu studying
interpretation
exegetical view, callsthey for do so becausesome they crucial were soaspects awestruck of theby Qurʾānic
Joseph’s story
beauty of Joseph.
that theyto d
they threatened to kill themselves if Joseph Religions would
2021, not listen to them, and, to convince Joseph Thethat generally accepted answer
the Book of God was not vouched know for what on12, they
x FOR PEERgrounds
spiritual were doing
REVIEW
and only; medieval
accidentally cut “stunned
their hands Muslim while scholars,
thinking that they were
Why Did the State Egyptian Noblewomen
they were serious in carrying Cut out the Their threat, they Hands?
Abstract:
deliberately Sūra cut Amīn
12theirof thehands Qurʾān, with Joseph,
knives. tells
This the ar- by
story his
of the [Joseph’s]
prophet beauty.”
Joseph. HeAc isc
Youngstown University, Youngstown, such as OHal-Ghazālı̄
44555, USA; mmir@ysu.edu (d. 505/1111) Keywords:and
some food by Ibn Qurʾān;
Religions
item, Khald Qurʾānic
2021,
ūn
like fruit.high 12,
(d. exegesis;
x
Amīn FOR PEER
808/1406), Iṣlāḥī;
Aḥsanwhose REVIEW Amīn made
Iṣlāḥīwife—tradition
differsAḥsan an Iṣlāḥī;
from this Joseph;
interesting view. Zulaykhā;
He casethat
argues Potiphar’s
thatthey the an w
ticle gives details of Iṣlāḥīʾs interpretation of the Qurʾānic an Egyptian verse in question official, and discusses byhow Joseph’sthat beauty,
calls her thought
Zulaykhā—makes w
Egyptian noblewomen
Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation
Abstract: Sūra 12 of the Qurʾān, Joseph, tells
forinterpretation
studying
Citation:
of
the Mir,
Religions
the Qurʾān
calls
story
Qur 2021,
Religions
for re-evaluating
of the prophet
Mustansir.
12, xas
ān 2021,
FOR
2021. Why Joseph.
a PEER
12:31 12, xwished
foundationFOR
REVIEW
some crucial tempt
they
PEER
Hethreatened
to
is bought as
REVIEW
succeed
andtoof
aspects
toakill
where
an seduce
the
slave
Zulaykhā
incentive him, and
Qurʾānic
themselves
story
had
for
2. Traditional
is of
if Joseph
failed, and,
gaining
Joseph.but
ridiculed
Muslim
unable
byliterary
accidentally
her peers toand
Interpretation
persuade
for scientific
cut
her their
failureJoseph
byofJoseph’s
hands.
to do
Qurʾān
in theso. Other
12:31
begi
She
types of banquet, hands themcultures. knives, and5would presents women,notJosephlisten to
awestruck them,them.
before and, to
Uponconvince seeing Josep
beauty him
by an Egyptian high official, whose Didknowledge—as
wife—tradition the Egyptian calls her Zulaykhā—makes
Noblewomen definable
Cut in antoday’s
unsuccessful learningat-
DidMustansir the Egyptian Noblewomen
Mirtempt to seduce him, and is ridiculedIn Keywords: Cut
addition
Their
by her
Qurʾān;
Hands?
peersAmīn
Their
to
for
Qurʾānic
practical
Aḥsan
her
Hands?
exegesis;
Iṣlāḥīʾs tostimuli
failure do ticle
they
Iṣlāḥī;
so. She
were
of
gives
Amīn
Amīn
the
serious
invites
Aḥsan
their
details time hands
them
in
of
carrying
Iṣlāḥī; with
(infra),
to
Iṣlāḥīʾs a
Joseph;the out
the
the
“stunned
interpretation
The
Zulaykhā;
knives threat,
medieval they
by
of
2.
generally
they
are
his
the
Traditional
Potiphar’s holding accepted
deliberately
two positions
perspectives
[Joseph’s]
Qurʾānic
wife;(Qurʾān
verse
Muslim
cut answer
beauty.”
in
istheir
12:31).
onquestion
Interpretation
to
hands
onlyAccording
learning
According
the
and
with
one of detail,question
knives.
to
to
discusses
ofbo
the
some ho
Q
ju
T
ge
Article Egyptian noblewomen 2. Traditional
exegetical 2. TraditionalMuslim Muslim
Interpretation Interpretation
view, they do so because they were so awestruck by Joseph’s beauty namely,
ofThe Qurʾān that
of
generally 12:31the
Qurʾān women’s
accepted 12:31 cutting
answer to of theth
Interpretation
by ofbefore Qurʾānthem. 12:31. Upon seeing 1.interpretation
The Problem Stated
n Why Iṣlāḥīʾs
Religions Did Interpretation
2021, 12,the
banquet, hands them knives, and
hands
x FOR PEER Egyptianwith
REVIEW YoungstownNoblewomen
their the knives
of they
theQurʾān
presents
are
Qur
Religions 12:12:31
holding
Joseph
ān
(Qurʾān x.
rote was
Cut
12:31).
informed
44555,Their
According to the
byhim,
Hands?
In
the the fact
generally
Sūra h
know
women
calls
Theaccepted
12,
what forcut
that
generally
which Amīn
The
itsgenerally
re-evaluating
they
tells
memorization
were bydoing
accepted
the
Joseph’s
some
story
andcrucial
accepted
answer
2 of of
beauty,
“stunned
accidentally
8 Joseph,
to
through
aspects
position
answer
thought
by
the question
verses
cutof his repetition
the
toaccepted
their that
23–29
Qurʾānic
the[Joseph’s]
hands theywhile
justbyposed
question
relate
werewas
story
most beauty.”ofusing
justthinking
how
is
Joseph.
classical
thatAccord
posed
the
knive
wife
isand
that
the th
o
w t
State University,
already Youngstown,
rooted in H OH adı̄th USA; mmir@ysu.edu
literature. One adı̄th, of a high but accidentally
degree by of cut their
authenticity,
exegetes”),
Joseph’s hands.
beauty,such Others
likens
as
thought the leave
the
following:
that the
they food
were
exegetical view, they do so because they were so awestruck
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx “stunned some . food
“stunned
by item,
his likehis
[Joseph’s]
by fruit. Amīn Aḥsan
[Joseph’s]
beauty.”
ꜤAzīz Iṣlāḥī;
beauty.”
According IṣlāḥīAccordingdiffers
to some from to this
interpreters,
some view. He
interpreters,
the argues
wom
˙ by Joseph’sEgyptian beauty that
Keywords: high theyofficial
Qurʾān; did notcalled
Qurʾānic women,
exegesis; (Potiphar
awestruckAmīn
but ofAḥsanthe
by Bible)—following
Joseph’s
ꜤAbdallāh
accidentally Iṣlāḥī;cut Joseph;beauty,
their Zulaykhā;
ꜤAbbās cut
hands. tradition,
theirPotiphar’
Others hand we le
Aḥsan
Mir
ArticleIṣlāḥīʾs know whatInterpretation
Their Hands? Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs bearer of the Qur ān to the owner of
they wereAbstract:
Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31.
doing Sūraand12accidentally
1. The
of
of the Qurʾān,
Problem
Academic
Qurʾān
cut their
Joseph,hands
Editor:Stated
tells the
Roberto Tottoli
12:31
while story thinking
of call
the that
prophet
Egyptian her
by
they
but
tethered
wished
Joseph’s
werebycutting
Joseph.
Zulaykhā—makes
noblewomen
accidentally
they but
threatened
Hecamels
toJoseph’s
succeedthought
beauty,
is bought
accidentally cut to kill
an (ka-mathal
where
beauty,
two
their
Zulaykhā
thought
asunsuccessful
that they
apositions
cut
slave
hands.
themselves their
s.ishad
women,
Others
hands.
āh
that
if Joseph
were
. ibfailed,
attempt
only
they
leave
al-ibil
using
one
awestruck
ibn
Others
would
and,
were
to
Jabr
the
of
al-mu
knives
seduce
leave
not
ibn
unable
using
detail,
food by
al-Qurashīthe
listen
to
item
aqqala):
tocut
knives
him,
both
Joseph’s
food
to
persuade
out
them,
(d.
some to cut
whereupon
686–7).
representing
(d.item
and beauty,
722)
and,
Joseph
food
out
some
simply
to(Mujā
ite
and
con
(I
cus
some food item, by
Religions 12: x. Article
likeanfruit.Egyptian Amīn
Article ‘Ifhightheofficial,
Aḥsan owner
Iṣlāḥīwhose tends
differs from their
wife—tradition this tether
view.
Why calls
He
Article regularly,
women
herargues that
in
Zulaykhā—makes thethe he
city, would
women very an likely keep
unsuccessful herthem
namely, peers,at-thatin ridicule
the hiswomen’s possession,
her, saying cutting that but
of “Ittheir if
is he
clear
hands to bothus
was thaar
Did the
Why
Mustansir Mir Youngstown
EgyptianDid
wished the
to State
succeedNoblewomen
Egyptian
2. Traditional
University,
tempt where to Youngstown,
Zulaykhā
seduce sets him,Noblewomen
Muslim
them
had OH
and Cut
Interpretation
Citation:
Infailed,
Sūra
44555,
isfree, 12,Their
Mir, Mustansir.
USA;
and,
ridiculed which
they mmir@ysu.edu
unable by
of
would
her
2021.
tells
to Hands?
Cut
Qurʾān thefor
persuade
peers story
[naturally]Their
12:31
hasJoseph
her of
gone
failure Amīn
women,
Joseph,
in
they
break
the Hands?
astray”
to
women,
awestruck
were
verses
beginning,
do so. away.
(innā
serious
She 23–29la-narāhā
invites Amīn
awestruckby
in relate
[Similarly],
Joseph’s
carrying
them
position fī howbyout
ḍalālin
to a the
accepted
two
Joseph’s
beauty,
the
if wife
the
mubīnin
positions
threat,
by
cutofSulaymān
beauty,
one
their
they
the
[verse
most who
is
cut only
hands.
deliberately
30]).
classical
(d.
their
memorizes
one
767)
But
hands.
cut ofthe
1 A series of events fo
and
detail,
(Muqātil
their
modern,
But
difference
hands the 2003,
Sunn
dif
wit
Article Article Did the Egyptian
Received: 24 MayArticle Noblewomen Cut namely, Ṭabarī
that the women’s cutting of12:122
their
n Iṣlāḥīʾs Aḥsan they threatened
Interpretation
Iṣlāḥīʾs Why to kill
banquet, hands Did
The Why
themselves
Interpretation
“stunned
generally
ofbythe
the
them
Qurʾān
his
Did
Egyptian
if
Qur Egyptian
accepted
Joseph
knives,
Theirān
Accepted:
[Joseph’s]
the
wouldhigh
and
(s
Hands?
.
answer
12:31
of
27āh
Egyptian
2021
official
not
presents
July
beauty.” . ib
Amīn listen
Qurʾān
2021 AḥsanJoseph
al-qur Noblewomen
tocalled
According
to
the them,
ān)
Iṣlāḥīʾs Why
ꜤAzīz
question and,
before
12:31
recites
to
Noblewomen
some
just
(Potiphar
to
(verses
them. itDid
two
convince
posed
30–34)
Upon
day
namely,
ticle
interpreters,
of the
isCut
positions two
gives
the
Joseph
:
seeing
2
and
that
namely,
interpretation that the
Egyptian
positions
is
the
details
Their
Bible)—following
that
him, thehe
night,
the
only
that
Cut
women
women’s
women,
calls
one
is only
of Iṣlāḥīʾs
women
for
exegetes”),
thewould
Their
ofHands?
were
women’s
dazzled
detail,
one Noblewomen
interpretation
tradition,
cut remember
cutting
re-evaluating
such
ofboth
position
of
cutting
some
Hands?
detail,
we
as the
of
theircrucial
Amīn
representing
the
qandī
hands
of
both
will
following:
accepted
(d.
Qurʾānic
it,aspects
their but
1993,
was
Amīn
923)
representing
byif
hands an
the
verse
he
ofmost
Cut
(Ṭabarī
2:159–160);
same in
does
involuntary
was
the
the
question
classical
Their
1909,
essential
same
Abū
an involuntary
Qurʾānic
and
and
act
story
esse
Isḥāq
on
in
of
di
m
wereWhy inDid Article Article
Abstract:
they
Academic
Sūra
serious
Editor:
12
Aḥsan
of
their
Roberto
Youngstown
by
Why
the Tottoli the
Qurʾān,
carrying
hands
Aḥsan
outDid
with
Iṣlāḥīʾsnot,
State University,
Joseph’s beauty,
theEgyptian
Joseph,
thecall
hedo
women
her
tells
threat,
knivesthe the
Published:
Iṣlāḥīʾs
would
they
they
Interpretation 9Egyptian
Zulaykhā—makes
story
Interpretation
Youngstown,
thought
August
that
Why
of
deliberately
areof
forget
OH
the
they
Noblewomen
holding
Qurʾān
2021
prophet
12:31.
Interpretation
44555,
cut
it’(Muslim,
were USA;Did
(Qurʾānan
their
using
Noblewomen
Aḥsan
mmir@ysu.eduthe
unsuccessful
Joseph. hands
12:31).
of
knives
He
1. The
Kitāb
is
with Egyptian
bought
According
Zulaykhā
Qurʾān Cut
attempt
knives.
Problem
Iṣlāḥīʾs
fad
position
to cut .of
as
āsome
to
ilhow
a
This
arranges
Qurʾān
al-Qur
position
accepted
Their
slave
the
Stated
food
to
ar-
12:31 Cut Noblewomen
seduce
generally
aaccepted
banquet,
Interpretation
ān,
by
item,
Their
Hands?
him,
accepted
bāb
most
like12:31 byal-amr
whereupon
ꜤAbdallāh
to mostwhich
classical
fruit,
Hands? she
exegetes”),
ibn
bi-ta Amīn
classical
and
some
ꜤAbbās
invites
ahhudCut
of
Maḥmūd
modern, and such Amīn
those as
Qurʾān
(d.
al-Qur Their
686–7).
modern,
Sunnī ibn women;
the ꜤUmar
following:
and (Ibn
ān,
Sunnī
Hands?
226 ꜤAbbās
12:31
ShīꜤī,al-Zamakhsh
and mufassirūn 1987,
ShīꜤī, m
by angives
ticle Egyptiandetails high official,
ofArticle
Iṣlāḥīʾs
exegetical whose Article
interpretation
view, theywife—traditionsoin
of
Religionsthe the
Why
because city,
calls
Qurʾānic
12: x. they very
her
Did Why
verse
were likely
Zulaykhā—makes
the her
insoquestion
Did
awestruck peers,
Egyptian
and an
by
she
ridicule
the unsuccessful
discusses
Joseph’s
hands
her,
Egyptian
eachbeauty saying
at- that
Noblewomen
that
guest
that
a they
knife;
“It is
Noblewomen
did clear to
not us
Cutthat she
Their Cut Hands?
Their Han Am
but accidentally cut their hands. Others leave the ḍalālin
food In
item Sūra Keywords:
exegetes”),out 12, which
exegetes”),
and such Qurʾān;
simply tells
as the the
1Qurʾānic
such
say ibn
story
following:
as
that the Jabr
of
exegesis;
the following: al-Qurashī
Joseph, ꜤAbdallāh
Iṣlāḥī; ꜤAṭiyya
verses
Amīn (d.Aḥsan 722)
23–29 ꜤAbbās
al-Andalusī (Mujāhid
relate
Iṣlāḥī; how
(d.
Joseph; 2005,
the
1147)Zulaykhāp,
wife
(Ibn 11Ꜥ
Mir Mustansirtempt Mir
Received: Aḥsan
to seduce
interpretation 24 May
ArticleAbstract:
him,
callsknow
2021 for
Why
women,
Aḥsan
andIṣlāḥīʾs 12Did
Sūraawestruck
[h
is ridiculed
re-evaluating
what they .
Why
of wereIṣlāḥīʾs
adı̄th
hassome
the Qurʾān,
byInterpretation
the
no.
gone
doing
byDid
her
crucial
Publisher’s 1839];
astray”
peers
and
Egyptian
Joseph,
Joseph’s
Interpretation
Aḥsan
for
aspects
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx al-Bukhārı̄,
(innā
accidentally
2:the
Note:tells
her
MDPI
beauty,
of
theEgyptian
la-narāhā
failure
the
stays
story cut
cut
QurʾānicIṣlāḥīʾs
to
their of
Noblewomen
neu-
of
their
doKitāb
fī so.
story
hands
the prophet Qurʾān
She
Egyptian
hands.
fad
of
while of
ā
Noblewomen
Joseph Interpretation
mubīnin
invites
.Joseph.
Joseph.
But
il Qurʾān
al-Qur
thinking
is
high
the
Egyptian
them 12:31
[verse
presented
He
to aān,
that
Cut
isnoblewomen
official
difference bought
30]).
theybefore
called
bāb
as 12:31
were A
Their
between
istidhkār
series
Cut
a ꜤAzīz
the
slave cutting of
women;
Sulaymān
of
Hands?
Their
(Potiphar
the
Qurʾān
al-Qur
events
(d.ibn
follow
of767)
ān
Hands?
Ḥasan
the
Jabr
wa-ta
Amīn12:31
(Muqātil
ibn
Bible)—following
al-Ṭabarsī
al-Qurashī
āhudih,
2003, Amīn
(d. 23
(d.2:147);
686–7).
1153)
722)tradition,Abū JaꜤ
(Ṭabarsī
(Mujāhid
(Ibn
w
(verses 30–34) ꜤAbdallāh ꜤAbdallāh ꜤAbbās ꜤAbbās ꜤAbbās ꜤAbbās
banquet,
Accepted:hands
their Why
hands
Published:
Keywords:
by
with
9State
August
Qurʾān;
them
Mustansir
27 July 2021
ansome
Did
two
the
knives,
Egyptian
2021
food
knives
Qurʾānic
Mustansir
Mir
the
positions
and
item,
high
they
[h presents
. adı̄th
likeMir
official,
Egyptian
is
are
exegesis;
only
holding
no.
fruit.
tral Joseph
whose
one
Zulaykhā
Academic
Iṣlāḥī;
Amīn
with
Aḥsan
5031];
of
(Qurʾān
Amīn
before
regardAḥsan
wife—tradition
detail,
to them.
al-Bayhaqı̄,
Noblewomen
Citation:
12:31).
arranges
Editor:
Aḥsan Roberto
Aḥsan
Iṣlāḥī
both
Mir,
Iṣlāḥī;
Iṣlāḥīʾs
jurisdictional Upon
callsMustansir
differs
representing
Mustansir.
According
a banquet,
Tottoli Joseph;
seeing
Kitāb
her from
2021.
to
Iṣlāḥīʾs
call Interpretation
him,
al-s
this
the
her
Zulaykhā—makes
to Why
the
Zulaykhā; which the
Mirthe
alāh,
.view.
women
generallyCut
same
she
women
ibn
Potiphar’s
He
Zulaykhā—makes Interpretation
bāb argues
are
Their
essential
Jabr
accepted
invites
cut
anal-mu
wife;
ibn
stunned that
unsuccessful
ibn
al-Qurashī
those
āhada
thebyof
an
Hands?
interpretation,
Jabr
ibn
al-Qurashī
women;
(d.
women
Ṭabarī
Joseph’s
at-
(d.
Qurʾān
alā
unsuccessful
686–7).
722)
qirā
(d.
(d.
of
(d.(Ibn
beauty,
Amīn
(Mujāhid
at
923)
722)
Qurʾān
686–7).
al-Qur
Sulaymān 12:31
cut
ꜤAlī
(Ṭabarī
attempt
(Mujāhid
(Ibn
2005,
their
ibnto
1987,
ān,
1909,al-Jawzī
(d.
p,
487
hands,
seduce 12:31
767)
2005,
117).
p. 1987,
12:122);
196);
[h
p,
him,
(d.
adı̄th
.and
(Muqātil
Abū
Abū
p. 196);
Abū exclaim
1200)
117).
whereupon
l-ḤasanAbū
l-Ḥajjāj
l-Layth
(Ibn
2003,
AbūM
that
al-Ja
l-Ḥas
Muq
al
2:1
l
Youngstown
exegetical
Mustansir
tempt
view, they
Egyptian noblewomen
Aḥsan
wished
University,
namely,
theydo
to succeed
Youngstown
toMir
Mustansir
seduce
so that
threatened
Aḥsan
no.
Youngstown,
him,
because Iṣlāḥīʾs
State
theMir 4051];
where
and
claims
University,
OH
women’s
they
toknives,
kill
44555,
is ridiculed
shewere
tional
themselves
Iṣlāḥīʾs
in
al-H
Zulaykhā
hands
Interpretation
published
cutting
so
affiliations.
ākim
Youngstown,
USA; by
˙ Did
had
awestruck
each
maps
mmir@ysu.edu
Mustansir
if Joseph
her
theofguest
andOH
peers
their
Egyptian byInterpretation
would
institu-
al-Naysāb
failed, and,
44555,
Mir
for her
hands
Noblewomen
aJoseph’s
knife;not
unable
USA; ūrı̄,
women
failure
was
beauty
listen
Cut an
to
of
toKitāb
mmir@ysu.edu
Joseph persuade
to
that
them,
in
do Qurʾān
isso.
the
involuntary fad
not
Sulaymān
they and,
.did
city,
She āof
Joseph ilvery
a invites
mortal
act Qurʾān
al-Qur
Sulaymān
not
to(innāconvince
on
(d. 12:31
in likely
the
theirān,
human
them
767)
beginning,
Joseph
her
topart,
(d.
abut
qandī
(Muqātil
13
767)12:31
peers,
that
aan adı̄th2:159–160);
[h1993,
angel;
. 2003,
ridicule
(Muqātil
no.
Ṭabarī
2:147);
her,
Muḥammad
2003,
2032]).
(d.saying
Abū 923)
2:147);
Abū that
JaꜤfar
Another
ibn
(ṬabarīIsḥāq
Abū ꜤUmar
“It isal-ThaꜤlabī
1909,
Muḥammad
JaꜤfar
clear to us(d.
al-Rāzī
12:122);
Muḥamm ibnAJ
th
Zulaykhā, feeling vindicated Maḥmūdḍalālin
before the ibnwomen, ꜤUmar says that
al-Zamakhsharī 1Joseph will
(d. either
1144) do
(Z
Mustansir. 2021. Why know Aḥsan
Publisher’s
Abstract: what Sūra
banquet,
Note:
they position
MDPI
12were
theirthey
of the
hands
Iṣlāḥīʾs
hands
stays
doing
Abstract:
Qurʾān,
were with
neu-
them
accepted
and
serious
h
the
adı̄th
.Joseph, 12Interpretation
by
accidentally
Sūra in
knives
of
states:
mostand
Received:
Joseph
tells thethe
carryingthey
Youngstown
cut
presents
Qurʾān,is24
out
are
‘He
Mustansir
classical
their
story
Their
Mayhands
presented
the of
holding
who State
Youngstown
Joseph
and
Hands? Mir
Mustansir
2021 while thinking
Joseph,
the prophet
threat, tells
12,they
(Qurʾān
University,
reads
before
before
modern,
Amīn
the of
Aḥsan
theQurʾān
State
Joseph.
story
them.
the
deliberately
12:31).
Mir has
Youngstown,
Sunnī Qur
Iṣlāḥīʾs
that
women;
ofHe
(verses
the
gone
University,
Upon
her
According
is
and
cutthey ān
prophet
bought
astray”
seeing
their
wish
30–34)
and
ShīꜤī,
Ṭabarī
were
to
12:31
Youngstown,
OH 44555,
as
or
him,
cutting
Joseph.
hands
2: be
the
a slave
USA;
memorizes
mufassirūn
(d.with
OH
the
Ṭabarī
923)
He
imprisoned
generally
la-narāhā
mmir@ysu.edu
44555,
Youngstown
women
is (Ṭabarī
knives.bought
accepted
USA;
(“Qurʾānic
(d. 923)
cut
it
This
and
fī
as
ismmir@ysu.edu
1909,
State
(Ṭabarī
ꜤAṭiyya
to
a slave
ar-
be
12:122);
humiliated;
mubīnin
University,
assembled
1909, Abū
al-Andalusī
qandī12:122);
[verse
Youngstown,
Muḥammad1993,
l-Layth
ꜤAbdallāh
30]).
[on OH
2:159–160);
Abūal-Samarqandī
(d.USA; 1147)
A
the
ibn series
44555,
l-Layth al-Samarqandī
ꜤUmar
(Ibn
Day
AḥmadUSA;
Abū
ꜤAṭiyya
of events
mmir@ysu
al-Qur
(d. 983)al(
Isḥāq
2007, 3:(
f
sometral with regard exegetes”),
toMustansir
jurisdictional such
of
Mir as the
Judgement]
Mustansir Youngstown
Mir
Accepted: Religions
following: 27 with
July 2021,
Interpretation
State
Youngstown
2021 University,
the xofFORQurʾān
State
noble PEER 12:31.
Youngstown, REVIEW
University,
and OH
righteous 1.
Youngstown, The
44555,
Youngstown
qandī Problem
USA; OH mmir@ysu.edu
people
1993,qandī44555,
State Stated
University,
USA;
2:159–160);
1993, [. . mmir@ysu.edu
. ]’ Youngstown,
(al-Bukhārı̄,
2:159–160);
Abū Isḥāq Abū Maḥmūd
OH 44555,
al-ThaꜤlabīKitāb ibn
Isḥāq al-ThaꜤlabī ꜤUmar
ibn
mmir@ysu.edu
al-tafsı̄r,
(d. 1035)(d. bābal-Bayḍāwī
al-Zamakhsharī
(Tha‘labī
1035) (Tha‘la 2004,
by an food Egyptian item,high like fruit.
ticleofficial,
by
givesan Amīn
Egyptian
whose
details Aḥsan
of Iṣlāḥī
the
wife—tradition
high
Iṣlāḥīʾs women
official, differswhose
interpretation calls from
are her this
stunned
wife—tradition
of view.
Zulaykhā—makes by He argues
Joseph’s
calls heranin that
beauty, the cut
Zulaykhā—makes
unsuccessful women their
at- ofanhands, unsuccessful and exclaim
at- that
x.the ofQurʾānic verse question and discusses how that
an Noblewomen Cut
exegetical view,
FORthey do soPEER because Abstract:9they
Sūra
were
Religions Abstract:
12: 12
so the
awestruck Sūra Qurʾān,12by ofJoseph
Joseph,
the
Joseph’s
Zulaykhā
Qurʾān, prays
tellsbeauty the to
Joseph,
arranges
storyGod
that tells
theyafor
the protection
Abstract:
the did
banquet,
prophet
story not Ḥasan
of
Sūra the
to which against
Joseph.
12 prophet
of He
al-Ṭabarsī the
she the
isQurʾān,
Joseph.
ꜤAṭiyya women’s
bought
(d.
al-Gharnāṭī
invites
He
Joseph,
1153) as is
al-Andalusī
those machinations,
a (Ṭabarsī
slave
bought
tells
(d.
women;
the
1344)as2006,
(d. story
a slave
(Abū
1147) ofandthe
5:307);
(IbnḤayyāGod
prop
Ab
ꜤAṭn
claims inReligions
wished
tempt to
published
toseduce
succeed
Mustansir
2021,
Religions
maps
him, where
Mir
12,ꜤAbdallāh
and
tempt
and
xinstitu-
2021,
Zulaykhā PEER
12, xibn
s ūrat
istoridiculed
seduce
FOR
REVIEW
had Published:
ꜤAbbās
abasa,
him,
by failed,
Joseph
herand
REVIEW
(d.
peers80
and,
is
is
August
686–7).
not [h
ridiculed
for
2021
aadı̄th
unable mortal
her (Ibntono.
failure
by ꜤAbbās
persuade
herhuman to do 1987,
4937]).
peers Joseph
but
so.
for She p.
Medieval
an
her in
angel; theMaḥmūd
196);
Youngstown
invites
failure Abū In State
beginning,
them
to do Sūra
Muslim
to Maḥmūd
l-Ḥajjāj
Youngstown
so. aibn 12,
University,
She ꜤUmar
which
MujāhidState ibn
pedagogues,
invites ꜤUmar
tells
al-Zamakhsharī
Youngstown,
University,
them theOH
to a story
al-Zamakhsharī
Youngstown,
44555,
such of (d.Joseph,
USA;as OH 2 44555,
1144)
Ibn of(d.
mmir@ysu.edu8verses
Sah 2 of
(Zamakhsharī
1144)
USA; n ūn 8(Zamakhsharī
23–29
mmir@ysu.edu
(d. relate
n.d., how
2:25
Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs interpretation calls for re-evaluating by an .
some
Egyptian by crucial
anhigh aspects
Egyptian
official, of
high
whose the
grants Qurʾānic
official, his
wife—tradition
whose story
prayer. of Joseph.
wife—tradition
calls by her an ꜤAlīprophet
Zulaykhā—makes
Egyptian
calls her
ibnHe highZulaykhā—makes
al-Jawzī official,
an unsuccessful
(d. whose
1200) wife—tradition
an(Ibn .
unsuccessful
at- al-Jawzī calls
at-
2002, her
4:167) Zul
dof Qurʾān
the12:31.Egyptian they
1. The
banquet, Noblewomen
threatened
Problem
know what they were doing Abstract:
hands them to Stated ibn Jabr
killbanquet,
themselves
knives, and al-Qurashī
hands if
presents
256/870) Cut
Joseph
them
fruit.Copyright:
would
Zulaykhā, (d.
knives,
Joseph
byand
Their
and accidentally
tempt ©
722)
not
Youngstown
before
and
al-Qābisı̄
toby
2021
12cut
(Mujāhid
listen
feeling presents
seduce
byan
Hands?
them.
tempt
the
to
their
Sūra Abstract: of the Sūra
them,
vindicated
State
(d.
hands
Qurʾān,
2005,
Youngstown
him,Upon
Joseph
toneu-
authors.
12 of Joseph,
and,
University,
seduce
and seeing
403/1012), p, the
beforeto
before
isthis
Amīn
while
117).
State
him,
she
convince
him,
This
ridiculed
thinking
Qurʾān,
tells
the
Youngstown,
them.
and
hands
Abū
the
Abstract:
the
Joseph,
ꜤAṭiyya
Egyptian
women,
University,
called
Qurʾānic
by
is
Joseph
Upon
women
that
story
each
l-Ḥasan
ridiculed
her OH seeing
upon
they
tells
ofSūra
that
says
Youngstown,
44555,
cut
passage
peers
the
the
guest
ꜤAṭiyya
high
by
were
al-Andalusī
Muqātil
for
12
that
USA;
him,
parents
her
aofcutting
prophet
story
official
OH
the
knife;
Joseph
(verses
tempt
her
of Qurʾān,
al-Andalusī
ibn Joseph.
the
called
(d.
mmir@ysu.edu
the
peers 44555,
women
toto
failure
1147)
will
USA;
urge cut
30–34)—indeed,
for
seduce
Muḥammadtoher
Joseph,
ꜤAzīz
(d.(Ibn
either 1147)
mmir@ysu.edu
dofailuretheir
him,
so.
Ḥasan
isJoseph.
She
tellsKathīr
bought
ꜤAṭiyya
(Potiphar
do
and
the
tochildren
ibn
He
(Ibn
ꜤUmar
the
invites
do
is
as story
is
al-Ṭabarsī
whole
ridiculed
so.
(d.
a slave
bought
ꜤAṭiyya
of
2007,
them
She
1373)
of
the
to
al-Rāzī
the
3:239);
of
invites
to
by
as
(d.
learn
athe
her
(Ibn
prophet
(d.
a1153)
slave
Bible)—following
2007, Abū Kathīr
3:239);
the
sūra—raises,
them
peers
1210)
Joseph.
(Ṭabarsī
ꜤAlī
tofor
1983,
Abū
a al-Jawz
(Rāzī her1938
He
al-Faḍl 200
ꜤAl
be-a
failu
4:
tra is
they were
some food item, like
serious in Sulaymān
carrying out the (d.
Amīn
767)
her
threat,
an
Publisher’s Aḥsan
Egyptian
(Muqātil
wish
they
Note:
or be
deliberately
Iṣlāḥī
MDPI
2003,high
imprisoned
differs
Egyptian
official,
stays
2:147);
cut their
from high
whose
Abū
and
hands
view.
official,
wife—tradition
JaꜤfar Joseph
2.
humiliated;
with
He
whose byis
Traditional
Abstract: call
Muḥammad
knives.
argues
Ḥasan an wife—tradition
her Egyptian
presented
Sūra ThisAbstract:
12 that
calls
Ḥasan
Muslim
of her
Zulaykhā—makes
al-Ṭabarsī
ar- ibn
the
the high
before
Sūra women
Zulaykhā—makes
Qurʾān,calls
al-Ṭabarsī
Jarīr (d.official,
12 the
Interpretation
al- of
1153)her
Joseph,
the whose
Zulaykhā—makes
women;
(d. Qurʾān,
an tells
(Ṭabarsī
1153) an theꜤAlī
wife—tradition
of
unsuccessfulJoseph, al-BiqāꜤī
unsuccessful
Qurʾān
story
(Ṭabarsī
2006, ibn tells
of an
al-Jawzī
12:31
5:307); the
2006,the (d.
attempt prophet
Abū 1480)
unsuccessful
calls
at- story her
(d.
5:307); of
to
l-Faraj (BiqāꜤī
Zulaykhā—makes
1200)
Joseph.
the at-
seduce
Abū (Ibn
ꜤAbd
prophet 2003,
He
l-Faraj him,is 4:34
ꜤAbd
Joseph
al-Raḥmboug wh
ṣlāḥīʾs
/10.3390/xxxxx
their hands
Interpretation
ticle
In Sūra
gives details
exegetical
Egyptian
with
view,
wished
high
the
12,Keywords:
whichknives
their tells
toof
of Iṣlāḥīʾs
they
Egyptian Ṭabarī
exegetical
do so
hands
succeed
they
Qurʾān;
Qurʾān the
Qur
(d.
with
arestory
where
923)
interpretation
because
noblewomen ꜤAzīz
view,
holding
they
the
Qurʾānic
ān(Ṭabarī
they 2.
Joseph
knives
of
Submitted
(Ibn
Youngstown
Zulaykhā
tral
ofdo
were 12:31
tempt
publication
(Qurʾān
with
theso
exegesis;
Joseph,
inso
for
banquet,
Sah
to
1909,
Traditionalprays
they
had
regard
2.
Qurʾānic
12:31).
are
possibleIṣlāḥī;
verses
hands
n12:122);
State
seduce ūn,
Academic
tempt
. Traditional
tomaps
Abstract:
because
awestruck
under the
holding
Muslim
God
verse
they
terms
open
to banquet,
University,
failed, pp. According
Amīn
23–29
Editor:
Sūra
by
them
and,
andAbū
access
jurisdictional
him, to
for
(Qurʾān
75–83;
Roberto
seduce
and
Abstract:
in
were 12
Aḥsan
isrelate
hands
knives,
Youngstown,
unable
l-Layth
Muslim
Interpretation
protection
question
Joseph’s
con- of the
so
tothem
Sūra
the
12:31).
Iṣlāḥī;
how
and
al-Qābisı̄,
Tottoli
to
ridiculed
him, and
Qurʾān,
and
awestruck
beauty
OHgenerally
sides
persuade
the
by
knives,
by
al-Samarqandī
Interpretation
against
12 an
of
discusses
that
According
Joseph;
isthe
presents the
44555,
women
byof
wife
ridiculed
her ꜤAlīpp.
Egyptian
women
Joseph,
the
The Qurʾān
theythe
accepted
Zulaykhā;
issues
and Joseph
USA;
Joseph
tempt peers
Qurʾān,
Joseph’show ibn
of
to
byare
ofin
to
(d.
women’s
tells
generally
did
the
74–90.of
presents
ꜤAlī
high
an
the
that
the
mmir@ysu.edu
byin
for
seducethe
herher
stunned
the
al-JawzīEgyptian
983)
12:31
Qurʾān
Joseph,
beauty
not
generally
Potiphar’s
interpretation
before banquet,
Joseph
See
official,
city,
ibn
story
them.
beginning,
peers
failure
him, for
by
very
al-Jawzī
(d.
(Samar-12:31
machinations,
tells
accepted
that of
also
and
high
the
to
whose
1200)
the
they
accepted
wife;
before
Upon
hands
Muḥammad
her do
Joseph’s
likely
prophet
story
answer
did
of
(d.
ꜤAbdallāh
(Ibn
the
them.
seeing
them
al-Ghazālı̄,
isofficial,
failure
ridiculed
so. She
1200)
of
not and
incident
to
beauty,
wife—tradition
her whose
al-Jawzī
Joseph.
the
to
Upon
knives,
him,
ibn
invites
do
by
Muḥammad
peers,
(Ibn
God
prophet
the He
so.
her
ꜤUmar
p.
cut of
seeing
the and
Aḥmad
Shawkānī
them
She
ridicule
al-Jawzī
2002,
is
question
the
women
77).
peers
their
wife—tradition
calls
Joseph.
bought
him,
invites
tofor
her
4:167);
women’s
presents
To
ibn
just
(d. cut
the
ahands,
herthat
al-Qurṭubī
as ꜤUmar
Zulaykhā—makes
her,
2002,
He
women
Joseph
1834)
them
calls
is
failure
saying
aFakhr
4:167);
slave
posed bought
cutting
end,
to
and
her
before
cut
(Shawkānī
aFakhr
isthat
al-Dīn to
al-Rāzī
as
(d.
that
do
exclaim
Zulaykhā—m
a“It
of(d.
Abūso.
an
slave
the
their
them.
1272)
isunsu
al-Dīn 199
She
121
tha
ꜤA
clea
wo
theyofficial called (Potiphar of the Bible)—following tradition,
hands, a numberwe will of general and specific issues. But our particular point of in-
their hands their
with the
hands knives with they
the knives
are holding they are
(Qurʾān holding 12:31).
their (Qurʾānhands
According 12:31).
with to
the
According
theknivesgenerally 3to
they theare
accepted
generally
holding (Qurʾān
accepted 12:31). Ac
threatened tothey
kill themselves
usuallyclaims
banquet, published
if Joseph
alludehands banquet,would
them
to and institu-
not
hands
knives,
prophetic listen
themand to them,
knives,
presents
reports Joseph and,
andJoseph
on
is to
banquet, not convince
presents
the before
a hands Joseph
merits
mortal Joseph
them.them before
humanof that
Upon
knives, them.
learningseeing
but and
an Upon
him, ibn
presents
it
angel; atseeing
the
Muḥammad 1854)
an women
Joseph him,
early al-Bayḍāwī
(Ᾱlūsī,
before
cut
the age,
ibn women them.
where
Aḥmad (d.
13:229–230); cut1286)
Upon (Bayḍā
Rashīḍ
seeing
al-Qurṭub him
interpretation
know what theycallswere forknow qandī
re-evaluating
doing what 1993,
andan 2:159–160);
some
accidentally
they weregrants
crucial
ditions doingcut
ofThehis
the Abū prayer.
by
aspects
their
and an Isḥāq
Article
Creative
generallyThe Egyptian
of
accidentally
hands the
Commons whileal-ThaꜤlabī
by2021
Qurʾānic
generally
accepted high
an
cut
At- Egyptian
thinking (d.
official,
theirstory
accepted
answerhands
that
tempt
of1035)
“stunned
high
whose
Joseph.
they has
while
to
to seduce
official,
answer gone
Muḥammad
(Tha‘labīby tempt
wife—tradition
were
the thinking his
whose
cutting
question
to the
him,
astray”
Muḥammadto
2004,
that
seduce
and
ibn
[Joseph’s] ꜤUmar
wife—tradition
question
just calls
they
is
(innā
3:372);
posed
ridiculed
her
were
him,
ibn
beauty.”
just ꜤUmar
la-narāhāand
al-Rāzī
Zulaykhā—makes
cutting
is calls
posed
that
byis fī
(d.
her
the is ḍalālin
ridiculed
her
al-Rāzī
According peers
1210) (d.
Zulaykhā—makes
that
women the
by
anfor
mubīnin
(Rāzī
to her
her
1210)
some peers
1938,
unsuccessful
women
were
failure
[verse
(Rāzī for to her
18:126–127);
interpreters, 1938, do
30]).
an unsuccessful
were at- failure
so.
1 A She
18:126–127);
the Abū at- ꜤAo
to
series
womeinvite
do
Citation: Mir, Mustansir. call her
2021. Zulaykhā—makes
Why they were serious in carryingtheir unsuccessful
Abstract:outexegetical
tional Sūra
affiliations.
the
hands
Received:
attempt
threat,12
with
their of
view,
they
24
theto
the
exegetical
hands
May seduce
Qurʾān,
they
deliberately
knives withdoview, so
they him,
Joseph,
the because
they
cut
knives
are whereupon
terest,
tells
dothey
their
holding
Zulaykhā,
the
they
so to
hands
their which
story
because
were
are
(Qurʾān with
hands some
of
holding
feeling we
the
sotheyknives.
12:31).
withwill
prophet
awestruckwere
(Qurʾān
vindicated confine
exegetical
This
the
AccordingJoseph.
soknives
by awestruck
ar- our
Joseph’s
view,
al-Gharnāṭī
12:31).
before
He
they
to discussion,
is
they
According
the by
are
the
bought
beauty Joseph’s
do
(d. so
ꜤAbdallāh
generally
holding
women,
as
that
1344)is,accepted
Muḥammad
to thea
because Why
slave
beauty
they
(Qurʾān(Abū did
generally
says ibn did
they
that
that Ḥayyān
not
ꜤUmar
12:31). the
were women
theyAccording
Thanāʾullāh
accepted
Joseph did
so1992, notcut
awestruck
al-Bayḍāwī
will 6:267–2
al-Maẓ
to
either their
the
(d. bydo g
1
or: Roberto Tottoli Maḥmūd foodimmense ibn like ꜤUmar
This heavenly
al-Zamakhsharī
Qurʾānic retribution
passage (d.
(verses 1144) isargues banquet,
promised
(Zamakhsharī
30–34)—indeed,
isby (verses
Joseph’s hands
Muḥammad for banquet,
the 30–34)
n.d.,
beauty, them
those
Muḥammad
whole knives,
2:253.);
2 handsengaged
:thought
ibn of the them
Aḥmad
Ibn andibn presents
knives,
sūra—raises,
that in
Aḥmad this
al-Qurṭubī
they and
wereJoseph
be- presents
enterprise,
al-Qurṭubī
using before
(d. Joseph
1272)
knives them.
so.(d. before
Upon
including
to(Qurṭubī
1272)
cutto asome seeing
them.
(Qurṭubī
1967,Upon
him, the
see
a9:1719
theirfood
someCopyright:
women food in © 2021like
item,
the city,by thesome
very authors.
fruit. Amīn
likely item,
Aḥsan
her tribution
peers,Iṣlāḥī
fruit.
“stunned (CC
differs
ridiculeAmīn tempt
BY) license
from
Aḥsan
Accepted:
“stunned
by his
her, tosaying
27seduce tempt
(http://crea-
this Iṣlāḥī
July
[Joseph’s]
by view.
2021
his him,
that to
differs
He
[Joseph’s] seduce
and
beauty.”
“It from
is clearridiculed
him,
this
that
beauty.”
According and
view.
towith the
us byis
womenHe
According
that ridiculed
her
to she peers
argues
some by
to for
that her
her
interpreters,
some the peers
failure
women for
interpreters,
the to her do
women, failure
so.the She toinvites
women,
dazzled do them
She
dazzled invites them to item
Did the Egyptian Noblewomen
Their Hands? AmīnKeywords: has
Submitted
wished
Aḥsangone
Cut
Iṣlāḥīʾs
for
to succeed
ticle
Qurʾān; where
possible
astray”
gives open
details
ꜤAṭiyya
Qurʾānic
wished
(innā
access
Zulaykhā
of Iṣlāḥīʾs
al-Andalusī
exegesis;
topupils,
la-narāhā succeed had
by
fīIṣlāḥī;
sides
an
parents,
by
tempt
Egyptian
Amīn
know
interpretation
exegetical(d.
the
Joseph’s
tomubīnin
some
1147)
Aḥsan
issues
by
seduce
Why
what
view,
banquet,
ḍalālin
where
failed, Zulaykhā
and,
high
of
exegetical
(Ibn
teachers,
Published:
unable
Joseph’s
food beauty,
they
know
the
of
they
Iṣlāḥī;
had
[verse
him,
item,
some
official,
were
Qurʾānic
do
ꜤAṭiyya Did
what
view,
Joseph;
9interpretation
hands
August
toand banquet,
failed,
thought
beauty,
30]).
like
food
sowhose
doing
them
isand
persuade 2021
they
1and,
fruit. A
verse
because
they
2007,
item,
the
and
hands
were
Zulaykhā;
do
knives,
thought
ridiculedthat
series
Amīn
inhands
wife—tradition
ofthey
patrons.
Joseph
unable
like by
her
their
3:239);the
but Egyptian
accidentally
doing
question
they
so
them
ofand
in
because
were
wish
Potiphar’s
to
that
her
fruit.
Aḥsan
incident
andand
exegetical
hands
Abū
accidentally
the
were presents
eventsknives,
Another
persuade
they
peers
Amīn
so
or
ꜤAbdallāh
the
calls
they
ꜤAlī
Zulaykhā
beginning,
using
Iṣlāḥī
knives
accidentally
cut
awestruck
be
with
their
wife;
of
and
were
follow
for
Aḥsan
differs
her
their
discusses
were
view,
imprisoned
ꜤAbdallāh
the
hands
the
Joseph
Joseph ibn
al-Faḍl
cut
knives
her using
Noblewomen
hands
know
so
women’s
presents
that
Zulaykhā—makes
how
they
knives by
their
rationale
failure
Iṣlāḥī
from
cut
ꜤUmar
before
arranges
intothe
some knives
Zulaykhā
while
their
what
that
awestruck
with
ibn Joseph’s
do and
they
ibnal-
hands.
Joseph
cut
to
differs
this
food
Kathīr
so
the
hands
ꜤUmar
thinking
they
arebecause
acutting
them. for
beginning,
do some to
so.
al-BiqāꜤī
view.from
item,
(d.
beauty
by
humiliated;
knives
al-Bayḍāwī Others
before
Upon
banquet,
cutearly
food
She
He
had
an
were
while
Joseph’s
holdingof they
some
(d.
this
like
that
1373)
they
al-Bayḍāwī
provided
unsuccessful
doing
that
(d.
their
them.
to
thinking
leave
seeing
item,
invites
argues1480)
view.
fruit.
they
(Ibn
were
they
beauty
al-Gharnāṭī
(Qurʾān
are 1286)
food UponCut
and
Pānīpatī
him,
memorization
which the
like
them
were
holding
(BiqāꜤī
that
Amīn
He
did
so
(d.
item,
them?
at-
that
that
food
the
seeing
she
fruit,
to
argues
the
Their
accidentally
Kathīr cutting
they
2007,
awestruck
12:31). not
(Bayḍāwī(d. 1983,
they
(Qurʾān
1286)women
invites
like
awomen
2003,
Aḥsan
1344)
item
that
him,
were
4:24);
According did
(Bayḍāwī
fruit,
cut
by
out
cut
of
4:34–35);
Iṣlāḥīthe
not
12:31).
1968,thethe
those Hands?
cutting
4:23–24); Abū
Joseph’s
(Abū andto
women
differs
women women;
hands
Burhān
Ḥayyān
Muḥamm
According
1:493);the
1968,
simply
Muḥamma
from
beauty
genera
Abū1:493
cut sa
wh
thisi
at
1Ḥ
May 2021 publication interpretation
under the termsḤasan and con-calls for re-evaluating
al-Ṭabarsī know
(d. 1153) what some they
know
(Ṭabarsīcrucial were what aspects
2006, doingthey5:307);of
and
were the Abū Qurʾānic
accidentally
doing Joseph and
exegetical
l-Faraj story
know accidentally
cut
prays
ꜤAbdview,
al-Gharnāṭī of
their
what3to
Joseph.
exegetical hands
they
God
they
al-Gharnāṭī
al-Raḥmān cut
(d. do were
forwhile
their
view,
so doing
hands
thinking
protection
1344) because
ibn they
(d. (Abū and
do
1344)while
they that
accidentally
against
Ḥayyān
so thinking
because
were
(Abū they
Kathīr
the n.d.,
were
Ḥayyān
so they
1992, that
cut
(d.
women’s
awestruck4:262);
cutting
their
they
1373)
were
6:267–269);
1992, so Muḥammad
were
hands
(Ibn cutting
machinations,
by awestruck while
Kathīr
ꜤImād
Joseph’s
6:267–269); beauty
by al-Ṭāhir
thinking
1983, and4:23–
ꜤImād
al-DīnJoseph’sthatthat
God
Ismal- t
Egyptian noblewomen
: 1.killThe Problem ifStated hands, a number
their hands of general
with
their the
handsand
knives specific
with women,
theythe issues.
are
knives awestruck
holding
she theyBut
hands our
(Qurʾān
are by particular
holding
each Joseph’s
12:31).
guest (Qurʾān point
beauty,
According
a knife; 12:31). of in-
cut
to their
According
the hands.
generally to the But
accepted
generallythe difference
accepted be
uly 2021
Mustansir.
InterpretationYoungstown
Religions 12: x.
2021. Why
they
of Qurʾān threatened
12:31.
(verses 30–34)
State 2to
University,
ditions of the Creative Commons
they were serious
they
themselves
threatened
Youngstown,
ꜤAlīwere
in carrying
they ibn
holy OH
At- al-Jawzī (d.
out serious
Joseph
thewhich
to
text
44555, but
kill
banquet,
some
terest,
threat,
in women,
their
would
had
USA; accidentally
themselves
wished
1200)
carrying
they
hands
food
but
tonotdo
(Ibn
todeliberately
which Aḥsan
mmir@ysu.edu
hands accidentally
tolisten
item,
some
ifsucceed
them
Publisher’s
exegetical
women,
awestruck
out
with the
with
al-Jawzī
we
the
cut
Joseph
wished
like
to
food
will
Note:
view,
awestruck
threat, cut
knives by
their
them,
knives, toIṣlāḥīʾs
would
stability.
where
fruit.
item,
2002,
cut
confine
MDPI
exegeticalthey
Joseph’s
their
they they
hands.
and,
and
succeed
Amīn
their
not tolisten
presents
Zulaykhā
like
4:167);
stays
bydo our
view,
deliberately
handsare
A
Aḥsan
Others
neu-
so
hands.
convince
where
fruit. grants
know
Joseph’s
with Fakhr
to
had
Amīn
discussion,
two
because
beauty,
holding they Interpretation
well-known
knives.
cut
leave
them,
Joseph
do
Others
Joseph
Zulaykhā
Iṣlāḥīsome failed,
his
what Aḥsan
Kathīr
al-Dīn
positions
cut they
beauty,
their
(Qurʾān so
and,
before
differsfood
prayer.
they
Joseph
This
the
know
is,(d.
Abū
because
their were
hands
leave
that
and,
had food
to
Iṣlāḥī
from
item,
were
Kathīr
Why
is
cut
ar-
12:31).
convince
h.what
them.
1373)
only
is
hands.so
adı̄th
unable
failed,the
ꜤAbdallāh
with
item
wished
doing
did
they (d.
Upon
differs
this
like
they
(Ibn
one
awestruck
presented
their
food
and,
the
But
to
view.
wereand
1373)
hands.
knives.
According
out
Joseph
states:
fruit.
were
Kathīr
of women
the so
item
seeing and
Shawkānī
to
persuade
from unable of
succeed
He
Amīn
that
this‘The
accidentally
(Ibn
detail,
by
before
This
to
doing
out
him,
argues
1983, Qurʾān
simply
to
Joseph
view.
Aḥsan
Kathīr
awestruck
But cut
Joseph’s
difference
the ar- both
the
the
and
generally
and
Qur
the
(d.
where
persuade
theircut
say
simply
women
1834)
in
al-BiqāꜤī
that
He ān
accidentally
4:23–24);
1983,
beauty
by
women;
difference
between
their
representing
that
Zulaykhā
Iṣlāḥī
thethe
Ashraf
argues
Joseph’s
accepted
mixes
Josephcut
(d.
women
differs
hands
4:23–24);
Burhān
that 12:31
say
the
ꜤAlī
(Shawkānī
beginning, had
1480)
that in
cutthe
they
beauty
between
the
that
from
while
with
the
Thānawī
the
their
al-Dīn
Burhān
did
the
1996,
failed,
same thinking
hands
that
thenot Abū
the
beginning,
(BiqāꜤī
women
this 3:26);
and,
(d.
2003,
view.
al-Dīn
they
unable
1943)
while
did
He
that
l-Ḥasan
essential
Abū
4:34–35
Abūnot
(Thā
argue
thinkin
they
tol-
ibn
intel-Ḥ w
ugust 2021 Zulaykhā arranges
Keywords: In Sūra
a
Qurʾān; 12,
fleshibn
banquet,Qurʾānic and
to tells
which
exegesis;
wished they
blood the
she
to story
threatened
of
invites
Iṣlāḥī;
succeed
wished himthey
Amīnof Joseph,
tothreatened
those
where
to who kill
Aḥsan
succeed women; verses
themselves
learns
Iṣlāḥī;
Zulaykhā to
where kill 23–29
it
Joseph;
had if
themselves
Joseph
at
Zulaykhā
This a relate
young
Zulaykhā;
failed,
wished
Qurʾānic would
and,
had how
if
to Josephnot
age.the
Potiphar’s
unable
failed,
succeed
passage listen
they wife
would
and,
to to
However,
wife;
where
persuade
(verses of
unable1854)
threatened
not
them, thelisten
Zulaykhāto (Ᾱlūsī,
and,
Josephto
itto
persuade
30–34)—indeed, kill
tothem,
keeps
had
in 13:229–230);
convince
themselves
Shawkānī
the and, on
(Muḥammad
failed,
Joseph Joseph
to
beginning,
the and,
inconvince
if
running
(d.
whole Joseph
the Rashīḍ
that
1834)
unable Joseph
ShafīꜤ
beginning,
of thewould
away Riḍā
(Shawkānī
to 1990,
persuadethat
not
sūra—raises, (d.
listen
5:50); 1935)
1996,
Joseph to
Ab
be
tribution (CC BY) license (http://crea- Muḥammad ꜤUmar
Copyright:
hands with
©
al-Rāzī 2021
tral
knowthe withby
(d.
knives
what
the
1210)
regard authors.
they that
know (Rāzī
towere 1938,
jurisdictional
Zulaykhā
what doingthey 18:126–127);
some
andhad
namely,
were al-BiqāꜤī
food
provided
that
accidentally
inadoing
item,
the some Abū
the
and al-BiqāꜤī
women(d.
likefood
them? ꜤAbdallāh
1480)
women’s
cut fruit.
accidentally
their (d.
item,(BiqāꜤī
arehandsAmīn 1480)
like
cutting
cut
stunned 2003,
while(BiqāꜤī
Aḥsan
fruit.
their 4:34–35);
Amīn
ofhands
by their
thinking 2003,
Iṣlāḥī
Joseph’s Aḥsan
hands
while 4:34–35);
differs
thatMuḥammad Iṣlāḥī
from
was
thinking
they
beauty, wereMuḥammad
differs
this
an that
cut ibn
view.
involuntary
cutting ꜤAlī
from
they were He ibn
ibn
thisargues ꜤAlī
Muḥam
view.
actand
cutting ibn
that
on ex He th
ar-their hands,
an Noblewomen CutAbstract: ticle Sūrashe 12
gives handsofEgyptian
details theEgyptian
ofQurʾān,
each Iṣlāḥīʾs
ticle
guest Joseph,
gives
noblewomen high
a knife;tells
interpretation
details
officialthe
of twostory
Iṣlāḥīʾs
of
exegetical the
called
they
positions
theyof ꜤAzīz
two
the
Qurʾānic
interpretation
view,
threatenedwere they
positions
prophet
theyis
verse only
(Potiphar
serious
they
into
do Joseph.
threatened
kill
of
in
wereso
in one
iscarrying
the
question
of
themselves
only
of
He
Qurʾānic
becausetothe
serious detail,
is
kill
one
bought
and
they of
verse both
Bible)—following
out
in
if carrying
the
sides
themselves
Joseph
detail,
discusses
were as
threat,
the
they
representing
would
slave
question
soout howboth
awestruck
they
issues the that representing
and
tradition,
deliberately
threat,
of
the
discusses
bythey
they
interpretation
same
toJoseph’s we
were the
how
6will
deliberately
cut essential
beauty
Muḥammad
their
serious same
that
of hands
the inthat
cut essential
interpretation,
they
Thanāʾullāh
carrying
with
their
1854)
incident did
knives.
hands
1972a, outinterpretation,
(Ᾱlūsī,
of not
the
with
the This al-Maẓharī
threat,
1949–1972b,knives.
13:229–230);
women’s they This al-Pānīpatī
deliberately
cutting ar-
2:397);
Rashīḍ of4 Mu
thei cu
Ri
Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs by an Egyptian high official, Muḥammad from the
ibn Submitted
memory
Aḥmad for possible
of
Mustansir
al-Qurṭubī
claims
some food
open
him
published
item,
access
some who
Mir (d.
maps
like learns
1272)
and
food institu-
fruit. (Qurṭubī
wished
position toif
it Qurʾānic
at an
Shawkānī threatened
Joseph
1967,
succeed
accepted
Joseph
notShawkānī
old
wished listen
would
isage
(d. tosucceed
1834)
9:179–180);
where
byto
not mostkill
[.not
them,
.themselves
Zulaykhā
ainvoluntary
mortal
listen
.thinking
(d. ], and,
(Shawkānī
1834)even
where
classical to to
had
human
them,
convince
if
Zulaykhā
and Joseph
though
(Shawkānī1996,
failed,
but
and,
modern, and,
an
Joseph
to
would
3:26);
had convince
the
1996,
angel; Abū
unable
failed,
Sunnīthat
not
latter
3:26); listen
Joseph
l-Thanāʾ
to
and,
and Abū
persuade tothat
would
unable
ShīꜤī,them,
l-Thanāʾ
Maḥmūd and,
Joseph
to persuade
mufassirūn to
Maḥm
in al-Ᾱcon
the
ote: MDPI stays neu- interpretation
Article calls callfor
Article
herwhose
interpretation
re-evaluating wife—tradition
Zulaykhā—makes calls
some knownamely,
for crucial calls
re-evaluating
what
ticle an namely,
that
her
aspects
they
gives the
were
unsuccessful
details
ticlethat
Zulaykhā—makes
of
some women’s
the doing
gives
of the
Qurʾānic
crucial and women’s
attempt
Iṣlāḥīʾs cutting
aspects
details anitem,
story
accidentally toAmīn
of
interpretation
of of like
cutting
unsuccessful their
Joseph.
the
seduce
Iṣlāḥīʾs
Aḥsan
fruit.
cut hands
of
their
him,
interpretation
of
Amīn
at-
the
Iṣlāḥī
their story
hands was Aḥsan
differs
hands
whereupon
Qurʾānic of
of an
while Iṣlāḥī
Joseph.
ticle
the
verse
from
was
gives
Qurʾānic andiffers
this
Pānīpatī
some
in details
question
view.
involuntary
that
verse
from
act
2007,
of they He
and
inon this
Iṣlāḥīʾs
argues
their
4:24);
were
question
view.
act
discusses on
Abū
cuttingthat
part, He
interpretation
and their
how
the
aargues
Muḥammad
discusses
women
part,
that of
that
the a
how
the women
ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaq
Qurʾānic
that verse
Citation: Mir, Mustansir. 2021. WhyJoseph is presented ꜤAbdallāhbefore the
ibn women;
publication
ꜤUmar they were under
al-Bayḍāwī serious
tional the
they terms
were
in
x.affiliations.
(d.
and
carrying
1286)
con-
serious(Bayḍāwī out the hands,
in carrying threat,
they out
1968, theyathe
they
1854)
threatened number
were
1:493);deliberately
threat,
they(Ᾱlūsī,
1854)
toAbū of
seriousthey
threatened
kill general
deliberately
in
cutcarrying
Ḥayyān
(Ᾱlūsī,
13:229–230);
themselves their and hands specific
out
13:229–230);
tovindicated
kill cut
Rashīḍ
ifthemselves
Joseph the
with
their Muḥammad
issues.
threat,
knives.
wouldhands
Riḍā (Ṭabāṭabāʾī
Rashīḍ they
ifpersuade
Joseph
not
3
(d.But
with
This Riḍā
listen our
deliberately
knives.
ar-
1935)
would to2002,
Thanāʾullāh
(d.particular
them,
not This
(Rashīḍ
1935)12:149).
cut
listenar-
and, their al-Maẓhar
topoint
(Rashīḍ
Riḍā
to hands
them, ofand
n.d.,
convince Riḍ ini
wi
tempt1.toThe Problem Stated
of Qurʾān Academic
12:31. Editor: Roberto Tottoli Religions 2021, 12, https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx exegetes”), such as the following: www.mdpi.com/journal/rel
gard to jurisdictional
Article seduce
Article
the women him, and areisal-Gharnāṭī
women ridiculed
in the
stunned haveby
city,
by herdouble
very
some
Joseph’s position
peers likely for
food the her
item,
interpretation
beauty, reward
wished
position
accepted
her failure
peers,
like
cut
to succeed
accepted
by
to if
wished
most
do
ridicule
fruit.
interpretation
calls
their for heso.
Amīn
hands, did
where
by toAḥsan
classical
She
her,
re-evaluatingmost
calls
and not
succeedZulaykhā
invites
saying
for quit’
Iṣlāḥīwhere
classical
and them
that
re-evaluating
exclaim some
had
modern,(Ibn
toZulaykhā,
“It
differs Zulaykhā
and
crucial
that afailed,
isfromSah
modern,
Sunnī
clear
some
aspects . n
and,
had
thistoūn,
feeling
crucial usunable
and
view. p.
failed,
Sunnī
that
interpretation
of the 81,
ShīꜤī,
n.d.,
He
aspects
and,
to
and
she
Qurʾānic as
persuade
4:262);
argues
of
callsthetranslated
unable
mufassirūn
ShīꜤī,
story
before
that
for
to
Joseph
mufassirūn
Muḥammad
ofthe
Qurʾānic
re-evaluating
the
(“Qurʾānic
Joseph.womeninby
story
women,
the Ayyad
Joseph
beginning,
(“Qurʾānic
al-Ṭāhir
of some
Joseph.
says
in
crucial 2021,
the
ibn thatꜤᾹshūr
aspects
Joseph
beginning,
(d.
of
wil
the19
Did the Egyptian
shed maps and institu-
TheirReceived:
Hands? Amīn
Noblewomen
banquet,
Aḥsan
Keywords:
Cut
In
hands
2021Iṣlāḥīʾs
Why
Sūra
Joseph is12,
Qurʾān;
them not
Did Why
which
knives,
has Qurʾānic
aKeywords:
goneand
mortal
the
tells Did
the
exegesis;
presents
p.
astray”
human
Egyptian
(d.
story
Qurʾān;
6. theditions
Iṣlāḥī;
Joseph
See
(innā
wished
but
ticle
1344)
of
Qurʾānic
of
Joseph,
Amīn
exegetes”), Egyptian
gives
before
also
la-narāhā
tribution
an to
interpretation
the
(Abū
(CC
angel;
they
succeed
BY)
Noblewomen
Creative
Ḥayyān
details
ticle
verses
exegesis;
Aḥsan
exegetes”),
such
them.
al-Bukhārı̄,
fīlicense
Commons
gives
of
threatened
Iṣlāḥī;
ḍalālinUpon
where
interpretation
calls
Iṣlāḥīʾs
23–29
Iṣlāḥī;
as the
such
details
1992,
they
Joseph;
for mubīnin
(http://crea-
Noblewomen
At-
Amīntoas
seeing
Zulaykhā
interpretation
relate
following:
Kitāb
re-evaluating
calls
of Iṣlāḥīʾs
6:267–269);
threatened
kill themselves
Zulaykhā;
Aḥsan
the
him, how
[verse
for had the
terest,
they
al-tafsı̄r, to
hands
the
Iṣlāḥī;
following: Cut
women
30]).
failed,
re-evaluating
some
were to
interpretation
of
ꜤImādticle
the
wife
Potiphar’s
Joseph;
which
Muḥammad
ꜤAbdallāh
kill if her
themselves
Joseph
1Youngstown
bāb
A
with
crucial and, cut Their
Qurʾānic
gives
al-Dīn
serious
they
of
series
interpretation the
some
wish
aspects
the
wife; Cut
we
details
of
Muḥammad
Zulaykhā;
sunable
ūrat ibnwere
would
knives
the
inState
ofifof
crucial
will
verse
orevents
to
calls the
Hands?
Their
confine
Qurʾānic
of
Thanāʾullāh
IsmāꜤīl
carrying
ꜤAbbās serious
Josephbe
not
in
Iṣlāḥīʾs
Potiphar’s
University,
abasa,
persuade
that
aspects
for
question
ibn out
imprisoned
listen
would
(d.80
follow
Qurʾānic
verse
Zulaykhā
our
Thanāʾullāh
in tocarrying
the wife;
686–7).
Ashraf
Hands?
interpretation
and
in
al-Maẓharī
threat,
them,
not
Youngstown,
[h
Joseph
re-evaluating
of .
the adı̄th
story
and
listen
ꜤAlī
Amīn
discussion,
question
(Ibn
in
had
Qurʾānic
of
out
and,
Pānīpatī
discusses
they
no.
Thānawī
the
some
OH
n.d.,
of
This
al-Maẓharī
the
humiliated;
toꜤAbbās
to
and
them,
is,
the
how
44555,
4937];
beginning,
provided
Joseph. story4:262);
crucial
Amīn
2007,
Why
discusses
Qurʾānic
is
al-Pānīpatī
deliberately
threat,
convince and,
1987,
(d.
of
that
not
they
USA;
1943)
4:24);
didan
al-Pānīpatī
Joseph
top. cut
convince
al-Bayhaqı̄,
Muḥammad
them?
aspects
Joseph.
the
verse
how
196);
mmir@ysu.edu
(Thānawī
of
Abū
exhaustive
(d.
deliberately
their
that
the of
women
that
in
1810)
Abū
Muḥammad
question
hands(d.
Joseph cut cut
list
(Thanāʾul
1810)
with
l-Ḥajjāj
1935,
al-Ṭāhir
Qurʾānic
their
that
thei
and
of
kniv
5:78)
storyibn
ha
Mu (T
oꜤ
td
10.3390/xxxxx
Why 24 May
Did Why the Did Egyptian the
Kathīr areEgyptian
(d. 1373)
ꜤAzīz Noblewomen
(Ibn Kathīr Noblewomen
1983, 4:23–24); Cut Burhān Their Cut
al-Dīn
ticle Abū
gives
Hands?
Their
Pānīpatī l-Ḥasan
details
Josephticle Pānīpatī
2007,
gives
ofprays Hands?
ibn
Iṣlāḥīʾs ꜤUmar
4:24);Amīn
details
to2007, Abū 4:24);
interpretation
God of Muḥammad
Iṣlāḥīʾs
Amīn
Abū standard
Muḥammad
interpretation
of the ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq
Qurʾānic of ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq
interpretation
the
verse Qurʾānic
in Haqqānī
question verse
verse Haqqānī
(d.
andin 31
1911)
questio of
discuss (d.sū
(Ḥ
ns. Egyptian
Egyptian
their 12:31.
hands with high
noblewomen
the official
knives
(verses called
Egyptian
they30–34) noblewomen
holding
2: (Potiphar
(Qurʾān they
of
12:31).
ꜤAbdallāh the
Keywords: were
According
ꜤAbdallāh
Qurʾān;
Keywords: serious
Bible)—followingthey
ꜤAbbās towere
Qurʾānic in
the carrying
ꜤAbbās
Qurʾān; serious
generally
exegesis; out
Qurʾānic inwould
tradition, carrying
theexegesis;
ibn
accepted
Iṣlāḥī; threat,
we
Jabr
ꜤAbbās Amīn out
will theytheto
al-Qurashī
ꜤAbbās
Iṣlāḥī;
Aḥsan deliberately
threat,
Keywords:
Amīn
Iṣlāḥī;(d. they
p.for
722) cut
(Muḥammad
Aḥsan
Joseph;Qurʾān;protection
deliberately
their
(Mujāhid
toIṣlāḥī;Zulaykhā; hands
Qurʾānic cut
ShafīꜤ
Joseph; against
with
2005,their1990,
Potiphar’s
Zulaykhā;knives.
p,
exegesis; handsthe
117).
5:50); women’s
wife; with
This
Iṣlāḥī; Abū
Potiphar’sAbū ar-
knives.
Amīn machination
l-Ḥasan
l-AꜤlā
wife;
AḥsanThis ar-
Muqāt
Mawdū Iṣlāḥī;
Interpretation
Mustansir.
Accepted:of27Qurʾān
Religions 2021.
July 2021
Whyexegetical
Citation:
12: x.
Article
call
Mir, Mustansir. her Aḥsan
Zulaykhā,
view,
1. The
Zulaykhā—makes
2021.
her wish they
Why do
or x.In
Aḥsan
feeling
so Iṣlāḥīʾs
Problem vindicated
al-BiqāꜤī
because an
they
behttps://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
imprisoned
Iṣlāḥīʾs
Kitāb
Stated
(d. Interpretation
1480)
they
al-s
before
unsuccessful
were
and they
.so threatened
alāh,
(BiqāꜤī the
awestruck
were
humiliated; Egyptian
ibn
Interpretation
bāb
women,
2003,
to
al-mu
ticle noblewomen
attempt
Jabr
serious gives
by
ibn
ibn
in
kill
4:34–35);says
to
themselves
āhada
details
Joseph’s
Egyptian
al-QurashīJabr
carrying
that
ticle
seduce of
ibn
Muḥammad
(d.
gives
of
beauty Qurʾān
alā
Joseph 686–7).
if
Iṣlāḥīʾs
noblewomen
al-Qurashī
(d.
out him,
Joseph
qirā
details
722)
the that
will of
(d.
ibn
(Ibn
at
either
interpretation
interpretation
(d.
threat, of they
whereupon
they
(Mujāhid 722)
Qurʾān
686–7).
al-Qur
ꜤAlī
n.d.,
Iṣlāḥīʾs
Sulaymān
did 12:31not
do
ibn
(Ibn
4:262);
grants
Abstract:
not
(Mujāhid
2005,
1987,
listen
ān
n.d.,
Muḥammad
interpretation
calls
interpretation
deliberatelyof
some the
p,his
Sūra
(d. for[h
2005,
1212:31
p.
Qurʾānic
767)
117).
them,
adı̄ths
.prayer.
Muḥammad
4:262);
196);
1987,
re-evaluating
oftheir
Egyptian
cut of
p,
the
Abū
and,
the
(Muqātil
Abū
nos.
Muḥammad
al-
calls for
Qurʾān,
verse
196);
Qurʾānic
1972a,
117). noblewomen
l-Ḥasan
hands Abū
l-Ḥajjāj
al-Ṭāhir
re-evaluating
insomewith
Abū
convince
4054–5];
Joseph,
question
2003, verse
1949–1972b,
l-Ḥasan
Muqātil
Mujāhid
knives.
l-Ḥajjāj
Ashraf
should
al-Ṭāhir
ibn
crucial
Joseph
tells
2:147); and
Ab
ꜤᾹshūr
insome suffice
aspects
the ibn
question
Muqātil
ibn
This
Mujāhid
ūthat
ꜤAlī Dāw
(d.
story
discusses
Abū 2:397);
ar-
Thānawī
ꜤᾹshūr
crucial
of to
1973)
the
ofhow
and
JaꜤfar ibn
ūd,
show
aspects
4the
(d.
(Ibn
Qurʾānic Kitāb
(d.
prophet
discusses
that
Muḥammad
Muḥammad
of1943)
that
1973)ꜤᾹshūr
the
the
story (Ibn (Thānaw
said
Qurʾānic
Joseph.
how of
that
ibnꜤᾹshū
1984, inte
Josep
Ḥusa He Jas
Zulaykhā arranges a
Keywords: banquet, Qurʾān; to
Keywords: which Qurʾānic she
Qurʾān; invites
exegesis;
Qurʾānic those
Iṣlāḥī; women;
exegesis;
Keywords:
Amīn Iṣlāḥī;
Aḥsan Qurʾān;
Amīn
Iṣlāḥī; Aḥsan
Qurʾānic
Joseph; Iṣlāḥī;
Zulaykhā;
exegesis;Joseph; (Muḥammad
Iṣlāḥī;
Potiphar’s
Zulaykhā; Amīn wife;
Aḥsan ShafīꜤ
Potiphar’s 1990,
Iṣlāḥī; wife; 5:50);
Joseph; Abū
Zulaykh l-
Published:
or: Roberto
Aḥsan
Tottoli 9 August 2021
the know
anhttps://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
Noblewomen Did Cut Egyptian women
Why Aḥsan
Iṣlāḥīʾs
Religions
whatJoseph in
2021, 12,
they were
Noblewomen the
DidCutcity,
prays
Iṣlāḥīʾs
doing
Citation:
Egyptian
Interpretation
Sūra
very
the
to
Mir,
Shawkānī
and
God
shehigh
12,
likely al-s
Egyptian
accidentally
for
hands
Mustansir.
Citation:
Interpretation
which.
her alāh,
(d.
protection
officialeach
Mir,
2021.
tells
1834)
peers, bāb
cut their
ticle
guest
Mustansir.
Why
called
the fı̄
(Shawkānī
ridicule
gives
storyof
thawāb
a Noblewomen
against
Egyptian ꜤAzīz
2021. hands
Sulaymān details
knife;
Why theher,
noblewomen
Qurʾān
of
interpretation
Copyright:
while
1996,
Sulaymān
Egyptian
(Potiphar of(d.
qirā
Joseph,
saying
women’s
© of
thinking
Iṣlāḥīʾs767)
at
3:26);that
(d. Qurʾān
al-Qur
verses
interpretation
2021 calls by 12:31
Abū
for
the“It
that
(Muqātil 767)they
interpretation
machinations,
noblewomen
of the Citation:
23–29
is ān,
l-Thanāʾ
re-evaluating
authors. calls
clear
Cut
Mir,
Bible)—following
were
(Muqātil
2003,
[h
relate
for
to
of and 12:31
.
the
Mustansir.
adı̄th
Ashraf
Ṭabarī
usMaḥmūd
by
Their
cutting
2:147);
how
This
an
re-evaluating
somethat
2003,
Qurʾānic
God
Egyptian
(d. ꜤAlī
no. the
she
Abū
2021.tradition,
Why
Ashraf
Qurʾānic
Egyptian
crucial
923)
2:147);
1454]).
wife
Thānawī
al-Ᾱlūsī
Hands?
verse
noblewomen
some
(Ṭabarī
JaꜤfar
ꜤAlī
high
aspects
Abū
in
we
of the
Thānawī
(d.
passage
question
will
(d.the
official,
crucial
of
1909,
Muḥammad
1943)
(Ṭabāṭabāʾī
JaꜤfar (verses
whose
aspects
Qurʾānic
Amīn
12:122);(d.
Muḥammad
and
(Thānawī
of
ibn
discusses
exegetical
1943)
30–34)—indeed,
wife—tradition
the
story
Abū
2002,Jarīr
1972a,
(Thānawī
1935,
Qurʾānic
of
l-Layth
12:149).
ibn
how al-
tradition
Joseph.
Jarīr
that
5:78);
1949–1972b,
1935,
calls
story the of
al-Samarqandī
al-Aḥsanherbehind
Muḥammad
5:78);
whole
Joseph.
2:397);
it.
Muḥammad
of
Zulaykhā—makes the
(d. ShafīꜤ
4 Muḥam
sūra—
983) (S(d
has gone Mustansir
astray” Mir 1854)
Mustansir
(innā la-narāhā (Ᾱlūsī,
Mir fī 13:229–230);
Medieval
ḍalālin mubīnin IslamRashīḍ
Submitted
[verse for Riḍā
displayed possible
30]). 1(d.A open 1935)
a
series multitude
access (Rashīḍ
Keywords:
of events
qandī(Muḥammad
tempt Riḍā
ofQurʾān;
sides Keywords:
follow
1993,to (Muḥammad
n.d.,
intellectual
the
seduce ShafīꜤ
Qurʾānic
issues
2:159–160);12:293);
Qurʾān;
him, of 1990,
and ShafīꜤ
exegesis; 5:50);
Qurʾānic
drifts
interpretation
Abū is 1990,
Iṣlāḥī;
and
ridiculed
Isḥāq Abū 5:50);
exegesis;
Amīn
an by l-AꜤlā
of
al-ThaꜤlabī Abū
the
her Aḥsan
Iṣlāḥī;
obvious Mawdūdī
l-AꜤlā
incident
peers Amīn
Iṣlāḥī;
(d. for Mawdūdī
divergence
1035) of
her (d.
Joseph;
the 1979)
failure Iṣlāḥī;
women’s
(Tha‘labī (d.
Zulaykhā;
to (Mawdūd
do1979)
Joseph; Poti
cutti
so.
2004, Sh(M
Z
3
Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs
Their Hands?
some
ay 2021Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays
Amīn
food Aḥsan
item,
grants Iṣlāḥīʾs
like
neu-his fruit.
Did theprayer. Amīn
Egyptian Did
Joseph Aḥsan
Noblewomen
theisEgyptian Iṣlāḥī
presented differs
interpretation
Cut
Noblewomen
2021.before Ṭabarī from
Cut the (d.
callsṬabarī
this 923)
women; view.
for (Ṭabarī
(d. He 923)
re-evaluating argues
Did1909,
(Ṭabarī that
12:122);
some
the Egyptian the
1909,
crucial women
Abū
12:122);
Noblewomen aspectsl-Layth
Cut Abū of the al-Samarqandī
l-Layth
Qurʾānic al-Samarqandī
This story is(d.4of
not 983)
Joseph.
3.an (Samar-
(d.
(Ṭabāṭabāʾī 983)Interpretation
4exhaustive
Iṣlāḥī’s (Samar-
2002, list3 12:149).
ofḤusaynthe mufassirūn w
Citation:call Mir, her Zulaykhā—makes
Muḥammad
Mustansir.
Citation: Mir, Why Thanāʾullāh
2021.Mustansir. an Why unsuccessful
al-Maẓharī
Citation:
publication
Keywords: Mir,
under attempt
Qurʾān; al-Pānīpatī
Mustansir.
the
Keywords: terms to
2021.
and
Qurʾānic seduce
Why
con-
Qurʾān; (d.
Egyptian
exegesis; him,
1972a,
1810)
Qurʾānic whereupon
hands,Egyptian
Iṣlāḥī; 1949–1972b,
1972a,
(Thanāʾullāh
noblewomen exegesis;
Amīna(d. noblewomen
number
ꜤUmar Aḥsan
Iṣlāḥī; some
1949–1972b,
al-of
Amīn2:397);
Iṣlāḥī;generalAḥsan
Joseph; 2:397);
Muḥammad
and
Iṣlāḥī; specific
Zulaykhā; Muḥammad
Joseph; Ḥusayn
issues.
Potiphar’s
Zulaykhā; But al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī
wife; our
Potiphar’s al-Ṭabāṭa
particularwife; (d. hp
of Qurʾān
uly Academic
2021by
2021
12:31.
Interpretation
Mustansir
Editor:
tralthewith Roberto
wished
regard
authors. 1.
of
Aḥsan
to The
(verses
Qurʾān
Mir
Tottoli
to Problem
30–34)
12:31.
Mustansir
succeed
This
jurisdictional
Did the Iṣlāḥīʾs
2: Stated
Mir
where
Qurʾānic
Their
women
Hands?
Egyptian
1. The
Zulaykhā
passage
the
in
Did
Amīn
Their
the women
Noblewomen
the
Pānīpatī Interpretation
of
Problem
had
(verses
Aḥsan
Hands?
city,
Egyptian
perspectives
failed,
Iṣlāḥīʾs
very
Cut
2007,
Amīn Stated
are4:24);
Noblewomen
and,
30–34)—indeed,
Aḥsan
stunned
likely Abū
unable
qandī
Iṣlāḥīʾs
herby
Cut
Citation:
on
1993,to
qandī
Joseph’s
peers,
Did
Muḥammad
ditions
Mir, of
Egyptian
how
thepersuade
theridicule of
2:159–160);
whole
Egyptian
the
Mustansir.
Citation:
the
1993,
beauty,
Creative
noblewomen
Qurʾān
2021.
Mir,
Egyptian
Qur
Joseph
of 2:159–160);
the
Their
ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq
her,
Noblewomen
Commons
Abū in
Hands?
cut their
saying
Mustansir.
Why
ān
noblewomen
the
Cut
At-
and
Isḥāq
sūra—raises,Amīn
that 12:31
Haqqānī
2021.
Maḥmūd
beginning,
Abū banquet,
Aḥsan
hands,
“It
the
al-ThaꜤlabī
Isḥāq
be- Sunna
Iṣlāḥīʾs
(Ṭabāṭabāʾī
ꜤAṭiyya
Why their
and
isterest,
clear
(d.hands
hands
ibn
al-ThaꜤlabī
exclaim
towith
(Ṭabāṭabāʾī
1911) to us
2002,
them
should
1035)
that
(Ḥaqqānī
which
standard
the
that
knives,
(d.
she
12:149).
we 2002,
knives
be
al-Zamakhsharī
(Tha‘labī
1035)
will
and
approached
interpretation
12:149).
confine
presents
(Tha‘labī
2004,
This
our
ꜤAṭiyya
(d.
3:372);
The
Joseph
1144)
2004,
isof not
and
verse
Pakistani
discussion,
before
3:372);
an
put
(Zamakhsharī
31
them.
to
of sūra 12.
exhaustive
is, Qurʾānic
Why
useUpon
did
ꜤAlī
n.d.,
list
seeing
It is
exegete,
the
2:253.
a fair
ofwome
tothe Am
ofthey are holding (Qurʾān 12:31). According the
Religionsthey12: x. al-Andalusī (d. 1147) (Ibn 2007, 3:239); Abū al-Faḍl i
ugust claims
2021
possible publishedthreatened
openin access maps and In Sūra
Zulaykhā to
institu-
sides thekill
12, themselves
which
arranges
Interpretation
issues tells ifSūra
Inbanquet,
aQurʾān Joseph
in
the
ofInterpretation
ofastray”
Josephinterpretation
is 12:31.
not of would
jurisprudence
story
12,a to Religions
which
Qurʾānwhich
Keywords:
Youngstown
mortal of not
the1.
Joseph, The
tells
Maḥmūd
12:31.
human listen
2021,
she the
Qurʾān;
State
incident 12,
ḍalālin
to
and
Problem
verses
invites x.
Maḥmūd
Youngstown them,
1.
story
ibn Qurʾānic
University,
but of an ꜤUmar
23–29
those
the ofand,
State
angel; Joseph,
ibn to
life
The Stated issues.
Problem ꜤUmar
relate
women;
exegesis;convince
verses
al-Zamakhsharī
Interpretation
Youngstown,
women’s University, how ofJoseph
However,
Stated
Iṣlāḥī;
OH
cutting the23–29
Youngstown,Amīn
al-Zamakhsharī
Qurʾān
144555,ofwife that
(d.
12:31.
USA;
their relate
of
Aḥsan
OH there
ofthe
1144) how
Iṣlāḥī;
(d.
mmir@ysu.edu
44555, isUSA;
1.the
(Zamakhsharī
1144)an
The
Joseph; unequivocal
wife Problem
Zulaykhā;
(Zamakhsharī
mmir@ysu.edu
should sufficethe
n.d., Stated Potiphar’s
to2:253.); unanimity
n.d.,
show Ibn
that wife;
2:253.); the said Ibn www.mdpi.com/journal/re
between
interpretation has p
10.3390/xxxxx https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx has gonen.d.,
Received: 24affiliations.
May 2021
Their Hands? Amīn
Their Aḥsan
Hands?4:262); (innā
Iṣlāḥīʾs
Amīn la-narāhā
Aḥsan
Muḥammad Iṣlāḥīʾs
Did fīal-Ṭāhir
the
Their
tribution
Egyptian
Hands?
(CCmubīnin
ibn
Did BY)
Noblewomen
the ꜤᾹshūr
Amīnlicense
Egyptian
Ḥasan
This[verse
Aḥsan
Cut
hands
exegetical (d.Iṣlāḥīʾs
Noblewomen
is 2007,
not 30]).
1973)
(http://crea-
with
This an
view, isthethey
ACutseries
(Ibnknives
exhaustive
not1153)an
do ꜤᾹshūr
so that
exhaustive
list
because
events
1984,
Zulaykhā
of 2006,
thelistibn
they ofhad
mufassirūn
were the follow
12:263);
soprovided
mufassirūn
who
awestruck them?
subscribe
bywho
ꜤAbd standard Urdu
subscribe
Joseph’s to beaut
the a interpretation
Qurʾānic commentary,of verse 31Tadabbu of sūra
der the tional
terms and con-they were serious
Egyptian
she
hands, in
high
hands
Interpretation
Citation:
a carrying
Religions
official
each
number Mir,
x.out
12:guest
ofEgyptian
Zulaykhā,the
Religions
called
of general
Interpretation
Qurʾān 12:31.
Youngstown ꜤAzīz
Mustansir.
Citation:
threat,
12:
high
2a: knife; and
feeling
of State
Qurʾān
2021.
Mir,
they
x. official
(Potiphar
Egyptian
Youngstown specific
1. ꜤAṭiyya
Mustansir.
Why called
vindicated
12:31. The
University, State
2021.
deliberately
of ꜤAzīz
the
noblewomen
issues.
Problem
In 1. ꜤAṭiyya
Why
cut
before
SūraThe their
3 But
Interpretation
Youngstown,
University, Stated
OHtheour
Problem
12, In hands
Bible)—following
al-Andalusī(Potiphar
al-Andalusī
which
of Sūra
Qurʾān
Youngstown,
44555, (d. with
Religions
of
1147)
particular
women, Stated
tells
12,
12:31.
USA; OH
12:knives.
the
saystradition,
(d.
which
the (Ibn1147)
point
that
story
mmir@ysu.edu
44555, ꜤAṭiyya
This
x.Bible)—following
tells
USA;of we
(Ibn
1.Joseph
The
of
al-Ṭabarsī
ar-
in-
the ꜤAṭiyya
will
will tradition,
Problem
Joseph,
story
mmir@ysu.edu either
verses
of
(d.
3:239);
2007, Abū
exegetical
Stated
Joseph, do
In23–29we
3:239);
Sūra
(Ṭabarsī
ꜤAlī
will
verses Abūal-Faḍl
tradition
relate
12, 23–29
whichꜤAlī
how
5:307);
al-Faḍl
tellsal-
behind
relate
the wife
the
how
Abū
it.ibn
story
oftheal-
the
l-Faraj
of
wifeJoseph,
of the
al-Raḥmā
verses 23
ote:Accepted: 27 July 2021 Mustansir Mir
(verses Did
30–34)
Ashraf
the Egyptian ꜤAlī
Did Thānawī
Noblewomen
the Egyptian Cut (d.
Their
Noblewomen
1943)
Hands? (Thānawī
Cut
Amīn
Their Aḥsan
Hands? 1935,
Iṣlāḥīʾs
Amīn 5:78);
Aḥsan Muḥammad
Iṣlāḥīʾs
standard
ꜤAlīknow standard
ibn ShafīꜤ
interpretation
what
al-Jawzī they (d. 1976)
interpretation
were
(d. of
1200) verse
doing (Ibn of
31
and should
verse
of from—or
sūra
accidentally
al-Jawzī 31suffice
12.
of
2002, sūra
It
cutisto
rather,
a show
12.
their
4:167); fairly
It is
hands
Fakhrthat
rejects—the the
representative
a fairly
while
al-Dīn said interpr
aforestate
representa
thinking
Abū list,
ꜤAbd
tha
MDPI
Creative stays
Commons ticle gives
neu-
At- call details
Joseph
her
terest, of
Citation:
to Iṣlāḥīʾs
isMir,
Religions presented
Zulaykhā—makes
whichx. call we
12:Mustansir.
interpretation
before
her
will
Religions
her 12: Why
wish
2021. orthe
confine
x. be Abstract:
of women;
Zulaykhā—makes
an the
unsuccessful
our
imprisoned Ḥasan
Qurʾānic Sūra
discussion,
Egyptian verse
attempt
an Ḥasan
Abstract:
12 ofin
al-Ṭabarsī
Religions
and is, the Sūra
Why
12: Qurʾān,
question
unsuccessful
to seduce
al-Ṭabarsī
x.
humiliated;
high
Egyptian (d.
official 12
did https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
of
and
1153)Joseph,
the
high the(d.
called Qurʾān,
discusses
attempt
him, tells
whereupon
(Ṭabarsī
women 1153)
ꜤAzīz
official theJoseph,
how
tocalled story
seduce
(Ṭabarsī
2006,
cut that
their
(Potiphar tells
of
some the
him,
5:307);
ꜤAzīz the
2006,of prophet
story
whereupon
Abū
5:307);
(Potiphar
the of Joseph.
l-Faraj
Egyptian the
Abū ꜤAbd
prophet
Bible)—following
ofStated He
some
l-Faraj
the
high is ꜤAbd
Joseph.
bought
al-Raḥmān
Bible)—following
official He
as ais
al-Raḥmān
tradition,
called slave
bought
ibn ꜤAzīz we ibnas
tradition,
will a slave
(Potiphar we will
ofrelate
the4:208–2
Bible
or:Published:
Roberto Tottoli
Academic
9 August Editor: Roberto Tottoli
2021 Zulaykhā(Muḥammad arranges ShafīꜤ
a 1990,
banquet, In 5:50);
Sūra
Interpretation
to whichAbū
12,
of Inwhich l-AꜤlā
Sūra
Interpretation
Qurʾān
she tells
12:31. 12,
invites Mawdūdī
of which
the
Qurʾān
those 1.
story
12:31.(d.
The
tells of
women;
should 1979)
Problem
the
Joseph, (Mawdūdī
1.
story
In
suffice
should The
Sūra Stated
verses
of Problem
Joseph,
12,
toitem,
suffice
show 1949–
23–29
which
to verses
that relate
show tells
the 23–29
the
said
that exegetical
how story
the relate
ingthe of
interpretation
said of
wife tradition
how
theJoseph,
of
verse the
interpretation the behind
verses
wife
(Iṣlāḥī
has practically of
has it.
23–29
the
2001–2002, how
ard license
BY) to jurisdictional
(http://crea-
interpretation
women Didcalls
inthetheforcity,Their Hands?
re-evaluating
very
women likely
Amīn
in
Their
some Aḥsan
the
her
Hands? Iṣlāḥīʾs
by
crucial
city,
peers,
Amīn
an
of very
Aḥsan
ꜤAlī
Egyptian
aspects
ridicule
likely
Iṣlāḥīʾs
by
of ꜤAlī
high
an
the
her, Egyptian
official,
Qurʾānic high
whose
story official,
of wife—tradition
Joseph. whose some
Muḥammad food
wife—tradition
calls her ibn ꜤUmar
like
Zulaykhā—makes
calls fruit.
her Amīn
al-Rāzī (d.
Zulaykhā—makes
anAḥsan
1210)
unsuccessfulIṣlāḥī
a (Rāzī
ꜤAbdallāh an differs
1938,
ꜤAbdallāh
anunsuccessful
at- from at-practically
this
18:126–127); theAbū
view. whole
He ꜤAbd thew
argu
the
handswomenwith are
the stunned
knives thatby Joseph’s
Zulaykhā beauty,
had ibn 4her
cut saying
peers,
al-Jawzī
provided their
ibn ridicule
that
hands,
al-Jawzī
them?(d. 1200) “It and
(d.is
her,
(Ibn clearsaying
exclaim
1200) to
al-Jawzī
(Ibn us that
that
al-Jawzī
2002, “Itshe is clear
4:167);
2002, to
Fakhr us
4:167); that
al-Dīn aisshe
Fakhr Abūal-Dīn as Abū
Egyptian https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
Abstract:
Noblewomen
Joseph Sūra
Cut
prays Abstract:
12
to God the Sūra
Qurʾān,
for 12 https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
of
protectionJoseph,
the Qurʾān,
tells
against theJoseph,
story tells
of the
the prophet
story of Joseph.
the prophet
He is 3.
Joseph.
boughtIṣlāḥī’sHe
as Interpretation
slave
bought slave
1972a, 1949–1972b, Egyptiancall her
Religions
2:397); 12:
high Zulaykhā—makes
call
x.Muḥammad
Egyptian her
Religions
official high12: x.the
called women’s
Zulaykhā—makes
ꜤAzīz
Ḥusayn
official an called machinations,
unsuccessful an
ꜤAzīz
al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī
(Potiphar
Egyptian unsuccessful
of attempt
(Potiphar
the
high and
(d. call God
to
her
1982)
Bible)—following
official
of attempt
theseduce
Zulaykhā—makes
called him,
to
ꜤAzīz
Bible)—following seducewhereupon
tradition,(Potiphar him,
we whereupon
unsuccessful
tradition,
will
of some
the some
attempt to trs
Bible)—following
we will
shed maps and institu- Academic she hands
Interpretation
Editor:
Academic each
of
Roberto guest
Interpretation
Qurʾān
Editor:
Tottoli12:31.
Youngstown aof knife;
Roberto Qurʾān
State
Tottoli 1.tempt
12:31. The
University, Problem 1.ꜤUmar
Youngstown, The Stated
Problem
OH
Academic 44555,
Editor:exegetical
Stated
USA;In
Roberto exegetical
Sūra tradition
12,
mmir@ysu.edu
Muḥammad Tottoli
wished to In
which
ibn
succeed tradition
Sūrabehindtells
12,
Aḥmad
where it.
behind
which
the story it.
tells
al-Qurṭubī
Zulaykhā of1. the
hadJoseph,
story
In(d. verses
verse
failed, of
1272)
and, Joseph,
30, 23–29
the
(Qurṭubī
unable verses
relate
women,
to 23–29
how9:179
criticizing
1967,
persuade the
relatw
Josep
org/licenses/by/4.0/).
has gone
Theirastray”
Joseph is
Hands? not (innā
a
Amīn has
mortal
Aḥsan
by gone
la-narāhā
an
grants human
Iṣlāḥīʾs astray”
Egyptian
his byfī
prayer. ḍalālin
buttempt
high
an (innā
an
Egyptianto seduce
mubīnin
la-narāhā
angel;
Muḥammad
official,
women high
whose him,to
[verse
fī
Muḥammad ḍalālin
official,
in the and
seduce
ibn 30]).
wife—tradition
women
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxxcity,whoseis 1ridiculed
very him,
mubīnin
A
ibn ꜤUmar
and
series
al-Rāzī by
wife—tradition
in thelikely
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx calls
city, is
[verse
of
her
veryridiculed
her
(d.
al-Rāzī peers
30]).
events
1210)
Zulaykhā—makes
her peers, calls
likely by
for
follow
A
1(d.
(Rāzī her
her
series
1210)
her
ridicule
her peers
failure
1938,
peers, of
(Rāzī
Zulaykhā—makes
her,an for to
events her
do
18:126–127);
women 1938,
unsuccessful
ridicule
saying failure
so.
follow She
18:126–127);
inher,
The that
thean Abū to ꜤAbdallāh
invites
do
unsuccessful
at-
saying
city,
“It
3.
Pakistani isvery so.
clear
Iṣlāḥī’s Abū
that them
She
likely
Qurʾānic to
“It ꜤAbdallāh
at-
usinvites
to
issome
hera
that
clear
Interpretation
exegete,
them
peers,
sheto us to a
ridicule
Amīn that sheher,
Aḥsan sayin
Iṣlāḥī
ay 2021 Received:MDPI
24 May
ns.Publisher’s Note:Keywords:
2021neu-
stays Joseph (Ṭabāṭabāʾī
isx.presented 2002, 12:149).
x.call
12:before her
the Zulaykhā—makes
call
women; her Zulaykhā—makes an unsuccessful an
call unsuccessful
herattempt
Zulaykhā—makes
to attempt
seduce him,
to
ꜤAzīz anseduce
whereupon
unsuccessful
him,
ꜤAzīz whereupon
attempt tosomeseduce him, w
thetoḤa
Religions 12: Religions
(verses Qurʾān;
Zulaykhā,
30–34)
AcademicQurʾānic
Interpretation2: feeling
Editor: exegesis;
vindicated
(verses
Academic
of QurʾānRoberto
12:31. 30–34)Iṣlāḥī;
Editor:
Tottoli Roberto Amīn
banquet,
1.
2:before The
TottoliAḥsanhands
Problem
the women,
Muḥammad Iṣlāḥī;
banquet,In
them
Academic Sūra
Joseph;
Stated
says
Muḥammad knives,
hands
Editor:
ibn that12, In
which
Zulaykhā;
them
and
Roberto
Aḥmad Sūra
Joseph
ibn Tottoli Egyptian
tells
12,
Potiphar’s
presents
knives,
will
Aḥmad
al-QurṭubīandꜤAbdallāh
which
the
Joseph
either they
story high
wife;
presents
do Egyptian
tells
before
al-Qurṭubī
(d. official
ibn
threatened
offīthe
Joseph,
Joseph
them.
1272) ꜤUmar
story
(d. high
to called
kill
verses
before
Upon of
(Qurṭubī
1272) official
al-Bayḍāwī
themselves
Joseph,23–29
seeing
them.
(Qurṭubī called
Upon
1967, (Potiphar
him, if(d.
verses
arelate
the 1286)
Joseph
seeing is of
23–29
1how
women
9:179–180);
1967, (Potiphar
clear
him, the
(Bayḍāwī
would
arelate
thecut
the
9:179–180); Bible)—following
to
not
wife us
how
women of
that
listen
of the
1968,
theto
thecut Bible)—follow
she
them,
wife has
1:493); traditio
gone
Abū
and,
of a
co
2021Copyright:
ulytral regard© to
with Accepted: 2021 by2021
27 July the authors.
jurisdictional
the
tempt
This
24women
to
Qurʾānicseduce
are
tempt
stunned
Abstract:
him,
passageto and
women seduce
Sūra has
by
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx 12
is
(verses
inridiculed
gonehim,
the
Joseph’s
of women
the
and
astray”
has
city, byisgone
30–34)—indeed,very
beauty,
Qurʾān, in ridiculed
her(innā
the
Joseph,
peers
astray”
likely
city,
cut
by
for
the
la-narāhā
very
her
their
tells
her
the
her
whole
(innā peers
fī
peers,
likely
hands,
3. ḍalālin
failure
of for
the
la-narāhā
women to
ridicule
Iṣlāḥī’s
story ofher
and3.
the
her
do
peers,
in
exclaim ḍalālin
failure
so.
sūra—raises,
mubīnin
her,
the She
ridicule
Interpretation
Iṣlāḥī’s
prophet
to
has
saying
city,
that
invites
[verse do
Urdube-
mubīnin
gone
veryso.
her,
Interpretation
Joseph. that
He
them
30]).She
astray”
likely
saying
is“It invites
to
[verse
1 A
Qurʾānic is
bought her (innā
series
clear
that
as
them
30]).
peers,
a
The of
to
“It us
slaveisto
la-narāhā
A
commentary, events
series
ridicule
that
clear
Pakistani she fī
follow
of
to ḍalālin
events
Tadabbur-i
her,
us
Qurʾānicthat
saying mubīnin
follow
she Qurʾān
that
exegete, [verse
“It (“Re
Amīnis cle
Egyptian noblewomen
Religions
her wish
Received: May
Received:
This 2021
is
x. be imprisoned and their
12:or
banquet,
not24 May
hands
an
banquet,
2021
exhaustive ꜤAbdallāh
hands
humiliated;
them knives,
hands
list
Egyptian
with
their
them
and
of
ꜤAbdallāh
the
hands
ibn the
knives
presents
knives,
mufassirūn
ꜤUmar
highEgyptian
with
and
Received:
they
ibn
Joseph theꜤUmar
official are
24
high
knives
al-Bayḍāwī
presents
before
who May
call
called
holdingthey
2021
subscribe
her
ꜤAzīz
al-Gharnāṭī
official
al-Bayḍāwī
Joseph
them. (d. they
(Qurʾān
are were
called
holding
1286)
before
Upon
to
Zulaykhā—makes
call
(Potiphar the
her
ꜤAzīz
12:31).
(d. (d.
serious
(Bayḍāwī
seeing
them. (Qurʾān
1286) above-stated
Zulaykhā—makes
1344)
of in
(Potiphar
the
According
Upon
him, (Bayḍāwī
1968,
the
seeing
an
(Abū
carrying Ḥayyān
unsuccessful
out
Bible)—following
12:31).
womento of
1:493);
1968,
him, the
According
the cut
the
Abū
the
an 1992,unsuccessful
threat, attempt
elements
Ḥayyān
Bible)—following
generally
1:493);
women to the 6:267–269);
they
tradition,
accepted
Abū generally
cut
ofto we ꜤImād
attempt
seduce
malāma,
deliberately
Ḥayyān cut
tradition,
will
accepted him,
to
shamāta,
al-Dīn
their
we seduce
whereu
hands
will and
IsmāꜤ h
w
ugust Submitted
2021 for
Published: possible
9 August open
2021
claims in published maps and institu- access
Zulaykhā arranges sides the issues
Zulaykhā
a banquet, toofwhich
arranges interpretation
In(verses
Sūra
ashe
banquet,
Academic 30–34)
12,
invites
Editor:
Religions of
(verses
which the
:which
tothose
Academic
Roberto
2
2021, 12,incident
30–34)
tellswomen;
Tottoli
Editor:
x. she of theofthose
the :invites
story
Roberto
2 women’s
Tottoli Joseph,
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx women; cutting23–29
verses of their
(verses 30–34)
relate
1 how 2 : the 1 wife of the www.mdpi.co
1
Religions 2022, 13, 179 5 of 19
Article
Why Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut Their Hands?

Aḥsan
the sources regarding Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation
the importance oftheQurʾān
of the memorization of Qur ān at12:31
an early age.
This notion was endorsed by the actual practices—as reported by key Muslim informants.
Article
According to a detailed Mustansir account
Mir by the noted Maghrebi intellectual Ibn Khaldūn on primary
Why Did school thecurriculaEgyptian throughout Noblewomen the medieval Islamic Cut world, Theirand Hands? aside fromAmīn some qualitative
disparities, the memorization of the QurYoungstownān was State given University, utmost
Youngstown, priority
OH 44555,(Ibn Khaldūn,
USA; mmir@ysu.edu
ii, pp. 353–55). Ancillary subjects included reading and writing, arithmetic, and some
Abstract: Sūra 12 of the Qurʾān, Joseph, tells the story of the prophet Joseph. He i
Mustansir Mirgrammar and Arabic language. While this by an represented
Egyptian high official, the overarching whose wife—tradition ethos calls of medievalher Zulaykhā—makes
Islamic pedagogy, it was not utterly safe tempt from to seducecriticism, him, and especially
is ridiculed by in her that peers some for her parents
failure to do so. Sh
tended to send Youngstowntheir State children University, the kuttāb
to Youngstown, OH at44555,
banquet, anhands exceedingly
USA; mmir@ysu.edu
them knives, earlyand presents age. Joseph before them. Upon seeing hi
Sometimes, this was impelled by pietistic their hands motives;with the in knives other theycases are holding it was (Qurʾān a prosaic 12:31). Accordingway to the
Abstract: Sūra 12 of the Qurʾān, Joseph,exegetical tells the story view, ofthey the prophet
do so because Joseph.they He iswere bought as a slave by Joseph’s beauty
so awestruck
for parents tobybe rid of young
an Egyptian high official, children whose for a while. calls
wife—tradition In either case, the practice
her Zulaykhā—makes an unsuccessful was criticized. at- while thinking tha
know what they were doing and accidentally cut their hands
Nonetheless,tempt while criticism of
to seduce him, and is ridiculed some the latter case
by herfood was
peers item,recurrent
for like her fruit.
failureAmīn and overt
to doAḥsan (see
so. SheIṣlāḥī invites for
differs example
them to a thisIbn
from view. He argu
Religions 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
al-Hājj, ii, pp. 315–16),
banquet, handsthat them of the and
knives, former presents was
wished Josephtorare before
succeed andwhere reticent.
them. Upon
Zulaykhā The
seeing hadhim,renowned
failed, the and, women jurist
unable cut toand persuade Joseph
founder ˙ of the their hands with
Mālikı̄ school the knives
of law they imamare holding
theyMālik (Qurʾān
threatened b. Anas 12:31).
to killis According
reported
themselves toJoseph
if the have
to generally
would accepted
denounced
not listen to them, the and, to co
exegetical view, they do so because they they were
were soserious
awestruck in by Joseph’s
carrying out thebeauty
threat, that
they they did not cut their hands w
deliberately
incident of a seven-year child memorizing the entirety of the Holy Book,
2. interpretation
Traditional whichInterpretation implied heof Qurʾān
know what they were doing and accidentally
Religions 2021,ticle12, x gives
FOR cutPEERtheirREVIEW
details hands
of Iṣlāḥīʾs while thinking thatMuslim they
of thewere Qurʾānic cutting verse in question and
must have begun this task
some food item, like fruit. Amīn Aḥsan at the age of five or so
interpretation
(al-Nafarāwı̄,
callsfrom forthis view.The
re-evaluating
i, p. 50.
He generally
argues See
some crucial
also
thataccepted
the Ayyad
women
aspects answer
of
2021,
the Qurʾānic to thestory quest o
p. 29). The justifications wished to succeed putwhere forward Zulaykhā by had early failed, Mālikı̄s
and, unable for their to persuade
“stunnedmaster’s Joseph
by his judgement
in[Joseph’s]
the beginning, reflected
beauty.” According to
concerns of different they threatened types: to kill a themselves
faulty pronunciation if Joseph
Keywords: wouldQurʾān; of listen
not theQurʾānic
2.holy
by text
to them,
Traditional
Joseph’s
and,
exegesis; by young
beauty,
toIṣlāḥī;
Muslim
convince Amīn children;
thought
Joseph
Aḥsan
Interpretation
that
that stress
Iṣlāḥī; they Joseph;wereZulaykh
of Qurʾān 12:31
using
Religions 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW they were serious in carrying such out theathreat, Egyptian they deliberately
noblewomen cut but their accidentally
hands withthe cut
knives. 2their
of This
8 hands. ar- Others leave th
being exerted on them to
Article achieve task; and depriving The them generally from accepted entertainment
answer
ticle gives details of Iṣlāḥīʾs interpretation of the Qurʾānic verse in women,question awestruck
and discusses by how Joseph’s that to beauty,the question cut theirj
essential for interpretation theirCitation:psychological Mir, Mustansir. 2021.
and Why
kinesthetic formation. “stunned Ab ū Bakr
by his al-Abharı̄
[Joseph’s] (d.
beauty.” 375/985), According to som
a Mālikı̄2.scholar, opined Why
Did the Egyptian calls for
that DidCutMālik
re-evaluating
Noblewomen
imam the some Egyptian
was most
2.
crucial aspects of Noblewomen Traditional
probably by Joseph’s namely,
Muslim
two positions
the Qurʾānic
concerned beauty,
that
Interpretation
story ofisJoseph.
the
only one
that
thought
women’s atCut
thatsuch
of
of detail,
they
cutting
Qurʾān
Their very
a were of their
12:31
both Han
using
represe
kniv
hands
Traditional TheirMuslim
Hands? Amīn Interpretation
Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs of Qurʾān 12:31 The generally accepted answer to the question
2 of 8leave the foo
just p
but accidentally cut their hands. Others
early age, the Thechild
Keywords: would
Interpretation
generally Aḥsan
Qurʾān; not 12:31.
Qurʾānic
of Qurʾān
accepted Iṣlāḥīʾs
naturally
answer
exegesis; Iṣlāḥī;
to the be
1. The Interpretation
able Amīn
question toAḥsan
Problem have
“stunned
just a handle
Iṣlāḥī;
Stated
posed
women,
position
Joseph;
byis his that
awestruck
onof
Zulaykhā;
[Joseph’s]
the the
accepted Qurʾān
women Qur bywere
Potiphar’s
beauty.”
2 of 8 by Joseph’s beauty, cut their han
12:31
ānicAccording
most text—let
classical
wife; and
to some modern int
alone the rulesEgyptian itReligionsnoblewomen
comprises[Joseph’s] and
12: x.
theAccording
wisdom it preaches.
byinterpreters,
Joseph’s exegetes”),
Both beauty, al-T such
urt
thought as
ūshı̄ the(d.
that following:
they 530/1136)
were23–29 usingrelate kniveshow to
“stunned by his beauty.” Into Sūrasome 12, which
xtwo
tells
FOR positions
the
the story
women, .of Joseph,
dazzled
is only one of detail, both representing verses
and Ibnby Raslān (d.
844/1440), thoughtaMir prominent
Religions 2021,
Mālikı̄
Egyptian but
jurist
high
12, accidentally
official and
PEER REVIEW
a
called notable cut ˙item,
ꜤAbdallāh
ꜤAzīz theirShāfiibnhands. ꜤAbbās
ite Others
respectively, leave the
(d. Bible)—following
686–7). (Ibnfood ꜤAbbās item
Joseph’s beauty, Mustansir that they were using knives tonamely,
cut some that the women’s cutting of their hands wast
food (Potipharlike fruit,of the
d the Egyptian Noblewomen Did the Egyptian Noblewomen
associated Cut
Cut Their
but accidentally
Mālik’s
2. Traditional Muslim Interpretation of Qurʾān
Academic
Hands?
cut
judgement their
Editor:
hands.
Roberto with Amīn
Tottoli
Others
the call
leaveher
Companions’ theZulaykhā—makes
food women, item
12:31
negative out
position
awestruck
and ibn
ansimply
outlook
accepted
Jabrby Joseph’s
unsuccessful al-Qurashī
say
by onmost that
memorizing
beauty,
attempt
the (d. 722)
classical
cut
and
their hands.
to (Mujāhid
seduce
themodern, him,2005,
Sunw
B
Their Hands? Amīn 2. Traditional
Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs Muslim Interpretation
women, awestruck The generally
by Joseph’s of Qurʾānaccepted
beauty, 12:31 answer
women
cut their toinhands.
the
the question
twocity, positions
But very the just
likely posed
is
difference only
Sulaymān
her isone
peers, that
between of
(d. the
detail,
767)
ridicule women
the bothsaying
(Muqātil
her, were
representing
2003, that 2:147);
“It the
is A
cl
ṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation ofofQurʾān
Interpretation Qur
Qurʾān 12:31.
The ān
generally
two 12:31
without 1.accepted
The
positions
understanding
Problem
“stunned
Received:is answer
only
24 May
byStated
onehis the and
to [Joseph’s] careful
question
2021of detail, bothhas
beauty.”just consideration
Youngstown State
According
posed
gone
representing astray” theto
isnamely,
that
exegetes”),
the
(innā
same
University,such
(fiqh/tafaqquh)
some that
women interpreters,
the
la-narāhā Ṭabarī
essential women’s
were
as the
Youngstown,
ḍalālin the
2.fīinterpretation,
Traditional
(d. 923)
following:
(infra). OH 44555,
women,
cutting
(Ṭabarī
mubīnin
Al-T USA;
of 1909,
Muslim theirurtmmir@ysu.edu
dazzled
[verse
˙ which
ūshı̄
.Interpretation
hands
30]).1 was
12:122); AAbū an
series l-Laoin
Religions 12: x.
even
“stunned bynamely,counted
his [Joseph’s] this by
In ‘malpractice’
Joseph’s
Sūra
beauty.” 12, beauty,
which
According as one
thought
tells the ofthat
story
to their
some the they detested
of Joseph, were
interpreters, using
position
versesinnovations
the knives ꜤAbdallāh
accepted
23–29 relate
women, to cut
qandī
dazzled (bida
by ibn
some most
how
1993, ꜤAbbās
) in
food
the his
classical (d.
item,
wifeaof the
2:159–160); 686–7).
time, like
and (Ibn
fruit,
modern,
Abū Isḥāq ꜤAbbās Sunnī
al-ThaꜤla1987 an
that the women’s cutting of (verses
hands 30–34)
was
Abstract: Sūra 12 ofan
2 : involuntary theJabr act
Qurʾān, on their
The
Joseph, tells part,
generally accepted answer to
by also
Religions 2021, Accepted:
butit 12, 27
accidentally
July
x FOR PEER REVIEW2021
cut their ꜤAzīz
hands. Others leave
ofexegetes”), the food ibn item
such as al-Qurashī
out theand simply
following: (d.the
ꜤUmar 722)
say story
that of the prophet
(Mujāhidthe 2005, Josep
(d.p, 111
Article
Joseph’s implied
beauty,
position that
Egyptian
thought
accepted
Published: was
high
that by not
official
they
most2021
9 August the
were called
classicalnorm.
using andknives(al-T
(Potiphar
modern, to urt
cutūshı̄,
by .an
Zulaykhā some
Sunnī the
Egyptian pp.
food
and
arranges 68–69;
Bible)—following
item,
ShīꜤī,
high
Maḥmūd
like
mufassirūn
aofficial,
banquet, Ibn
fruit,
“stunned
whose Rushd
to tradition,
ibn
(“Qurʾānic
which byshe
wife—tradition al-Jadd,
hiswe will
al-Zamakhsharī
[Joseph’s]
invites calls xviii,
those
her beauty.”
women;
Zulaykhā—m Acc
women, awestruck by Joseph’s ˙
beauty, cut their hands. Sulaymān But the (d. 767)
difference (Muqātil between 2003, the 2:147); Abū 2Ja
a ꜤAṭiyya ꜤAṭiyya
Religions
calltheir her 2021,
Zulaykhā—makes 12, x FOR PEER
leave an REVIEW
theunsuccessful attempt to seduce him, whereupon some
butp. accidentally
287; cut
exegetes”),
Tottolial-Nafarāwı̄, such hands.
i, asp.the Others
50; following:
al-Kattānı̄, food
ii, p. item202).
she tempt
out andeach
Others,
hands to seduce ꜤAbdallāh
simply such
guest
him,
say as
and
that
ibn
Sa is by
knife; ꜤAbbās
the al-Andalusī
ı̄dessential
ridiculedb.
Joseph’s (d. by686–7).
Jubayr beauty,
her
(d.
(d.
peers (Ibn forꜤAbbās
1147)
95/714)
thought (Ibn
herAbū that 1987,
failure theytop. w
do 1
Academic Editor: Roberto
Ṭabarī
Why Did
Religions 2021, 12, x FORtheStateEgyptian
Youngstown
PEER REVIEW
University, Youngstown, Noblewomen
women,
and OH
awestruck
Ibrāhı̄m
44555, USA;
women
by
ꜤAbdallāh
al-Nakha
two
Joseph’sin
Publisher’s
mmir@ysu.edu
namely,
Cut
positions
ibn the Note:Their
city,
beauty,
ꜤAbbās
that
is
very
MDPI
ı̄ (d.(innā
the
only
(d. cut
96/715),
likely
stays
one
their
686–7).
women’s
Hands?
neu-
of
her(Ibn
did
detail,
peers,
hands.
cutting
ꜤAbbās
not
But both
Joseph
of
Amīn
ridicule
the
1987,
recommend
banquet,
their
representing
is her,
difference
presented
hands
p.
hands
2saying
196); of
ibnthem
was
8
Jabr
Abū
the
that
between
before
encouraging
qandī
(d.
same
Ḥasan “It
al-Qurashī
l-Ḥajjāj
knives, 1993,
an 1involuntary
923)
but
the is
the
and
clear (Ṭabarī
al-Ṭabarsī
accidentally
women;
Mujāhid young
presents
2:159–160);
to
act
us
(d. 722)Joseph
on
1909,
(d.that1153)
(Mujāhid
cut
12:122);
interpretation,
children
Abū
their
she (Ṭabarsī
their
before
Isḥāq
part,
2005,
hands.
to
them.
al-ThaꜤlabī
aal-Jawzī
l-Layth
2006,
p,Upon 5:30
117).seA
Others
(d
a
two
Received: 24 May 2021 positions is has
only gone
one
tral of astray”
with detail,
regard
ibn Jabr al-Qurashī (d. 722) (Mujāhid 2005, both
to 2.
la-narāhāTraditional
representing
jurisdictional fī ḍalālin
the Muslim
the mubīnin
same women
p,hands
Interpretation
essential
117).are [verse
Sulaymān
Abū 30]).
interpretation,
stunnedl-Ḥasan ꜤAlī
of
A
(d. Qurʾān
series
ibn
767)
women,
byMuqātil
Joseph’s of
al-Jawzī 12:31
events
(Muqātil (d.
awestruck
ibn beauty, follow
1200)
2003, (Ibn
2:147);
cutbytheir Joseph’s Abū
hands, 2002,
JaꜤfar
beauty,
and(Z e
their with the knives they are
ꜤUmar holding (Qurʾān 12:31). According
AḥsanAbstract: Iṣlāḥīʾs Sūra 12 of Interpretation
the Qurʾān,
Accepted:
memorize
namely,
2021 tellsthat
Joseph,
27 July of
thethe
the story Qurʾān
of
Qur
(verses
women’s position
the claims
Sulaymān prophet
ān,
30–34)
cutting 212:31
lest
in published
(d. Joseph. : ofthey
accepted
767) their
maps
He and
(Muqātil
byshould
ishands
mostThe
institu-
bought 2003, was feel
classicalan bored
as2.2:147);
agenerally
slave
and accepted
involuntary
Traditional
JosephAbū is
exegetical
(al-Qast
modern,Muslim
not
JaꜤfar view,
Sunnī
Ṭabarī
act answer
aMuḥammad
mortal
allānı̄,
they
Maḥmūd
ꜤAṭiyya do
and
.Interpretation
on their
(d. to
human
xi,
Muḥammad
923) part,
sothe
ibn
ShīꜤī,
two
ibn
p.
because
aJarīr
(Ṭabarī 309).
mufassirūn
of
question
but
al-Andalusī
positions
anthey
ibn
Qurʾān
1909,
angel;
al-
al-Zamakhsharī
ꜤUmar
just
were
(d.
(“Qurʾānic
is12:31
12:122);
posed
1147)
only
so
al-Rāzī
Abūis that
one
awestruck
(Ibn
(d.(d.
l-Layth
of
ꜤAṭiyya
1210)
the
1144)
detail,
by
(Rāz
al-Sam
wome
Joseph’s
2007,
bot
3
The most exegetes”),
byresilient, and such as the
comprehensive, following: position in this regard was
position accepted most Muḥammad toheld ibn by the
Aḥmad eminent al-Qurṭubī (d.
tional classical
affiliations. and modern, Sunnī and ShīꜤī, mufassirūn qandī (“Qurʾānic
1993, 2:159–160); Abū Isḥāq al-ThaꜤlabī
by an Egyptian high 2.Published:
Article Traditional
official, 9 August
whose 2021
Muslim
wife—tradition Ṭabarī
Interpretation
calls her Zulaykhā
(d. of923) Qurʾān
Zulaykhā—makes arranges
(Ṭabarī 12:31 1909, a “stunned
an banquet,
12:122);
unsuccessful bywhich
to
Abū his
The
at- [Joseph’s]
Zulaykhā,
l-Layth
know she
generally invites
al-Samarqandī
what
beauty.”
feeling
they those
accepted
werevindicated
Ḥasan
According
women;
(d.
answer
doing namely,
983)
and
al-Ṭabarsī before to
(Samar- the some
accidentallythat
(d.the question
1153)
interpreters,
the
women,
cut women’sjust
their
(Ṭabarsī says posed
hands
thewhile
cutting
that
2006, is (d.
women,
Joseph of
that
5:307); think
103
th
Aw
th
Mustansir Mir tempt to seduce him, and is exegetes”),
ridiculed judgeby her such
of Seville
peers as
qandī
for theher following:
Ab
she
1993, ū ꜤAbdallāh
hands
failure Bakr to each
2:159–160);
do b.so. ibn
al-
guest
She ꜤAbbās
AbūArabı̄
bya knife;
invites Isḥāq (d.
Joseph’s (d. 686–7).
543/1148),
“stunned
them beauty,
to her
al-ThaꜤlabī a (Ibn
wish
bywomen ꜤAbbās
thought
(d. or whose
be
1035)
his [Joseph’s] 1987,
Maḥmūd
that
imprisoned
(Tha‘labī p.
position
they ꜤAbdallāh
196);
ibn
beauty.”were ꜤUmar
Abū
position
and
2004, in
using ibn
l-Ḥajjāj
the
humiliated;
3:372);
According ꜤUmar
accepted Mujāhid
official
al-Zamakhsharī
knives to
to (Ibn al-Bayḍāwī
somecut
by judicial
some
most (d. 1144)
food (d.
classical
interpreters, 1286)
(Zama
item, and
theH li(w
some food item, ꜤAlī
like fruit. Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī differs from this view.
banquet, hands Why Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut Their Hands? Amīn
The generally accepted answer to the question just posed is that the were ibn al-Jawzī (d. 1200) al-Jawzī 2002, 4:167
Publisher’s Note: MDPI ꜤAbdallāh
stays neu- ibn ꜤAbbās Joseph ibn
(d. Jabr
isꜤUmar
presented
686–7). al-Qurashī
(Ibn Religions
ꜤAbbās
but
before 2021,
(d. 722)
accidentally
the
1987, 12,
women;
p.x(Mujāhid
FORcut
196); PEER their
Abū REVIEW
2005, ꜤAṭiyya
hands. p, 117).
Others al-Gharnāṭī
Abū
al-Andalusī leavel-Ḥasan
exegetes”), (d.
the (d.food 1344)
Muqātil
1147)
such (Ibn
item as(Abū
ibn
out
theꜤAṭiyyaḤayyān
and
following: 2007,
cutsimply 1992, say6
3:239
them knives,
“stunned and
by his body
presents
[Joseph’s] (see
Joseph A
Maḥmūd
before
beauty.” rāb them. 1987,
AccordingibnUpon pp.
seeing
to some 9–49;
al-Zamakhsharī
him, theRobson
interpreters,women by (d.
cut
the 1986)
Joseph
Joseph’s 1144)
wished
women, to l-Ḥajjāj
did
prays
(Zamakhsharī
beauty, succeed
dazzled not
to God
thought Mujāhid
prevent
wherefor
Muḥammad n.d.,
thatprotection
Zulaykhā him
2:253.);
they ibnwere from
against
Ibn
ꜤUmar
had using
failed, expressing
the
knives
al-Rāzī women’s
and, to
unable
(d. 1210) machinatio
some
to persuade
(Rāzī food
193
tral with regard to jurisdictional
ibn Jabr ꜤAṭiyya
al-Qurashī the (d. Sulaymān
women722)
al-Andalusī are
(Mujāhid (d.
(d.stunned
the1147)767)
women,
2005, (Muqātil
by p,
(Ibnsome awestruck
ꜤAṭiyya
Joseph’s
117).
but 2003,
Abū
grants beauty,
2007,
accidentally 2:147);
by
l-Ḥasan
his Joseph’s
cut
prayer.
3:239); Ḥasan
Abū their
Muqātil
Abū JaꜤfar
beauty,
ꜤAlī
hands,
hands. Kathīr
al-Ṭabarsī Muḥammad
ibn cut
al-Faḍl and
Others(d.
(d.
their 1373)
1153)
exclaim
ꜤAbdallāh
ibn al-
leave ibn
hands. (Ibn
(Ṭabarsī
that
the Kathīr
JarīrBut
food al-2006,
the
ꜤAbbās
1983, 4:23–24);
5:307);
difference Abū betw Bu
l-
their hands with the knives they areUniversity,
holding (Qurʾān 12:31). According USA;toknives generally accepted notitem out and1272 sim
Aḥsan
exegetical view, they
by Joseph’s
Youngstown
do so
Iṣlāḥīʾs
State
claims in published
because
reservation
beauty,
maps
they
thought
Sulaymān
were
Interpretation
so
that
Youngstown,
and institu- against
Ḥasan
(d.
they
767)
awestruck
OH
Joseph
were
(Muqātil
al-Ṭabarsī
Copyright:
by
anusing
44555,
Ṭabarīis
Joseph’s
established
©not (d.
2003,
(d.
2021 a of
mmir@ysu.edu
923)
mortal
1153)
by
beauty 2:147); Qurʾān
to cut
(Ṭabarī
two
Qur
human
the (Ṭabarsī
authors.
that Abū
they 1909,
positions
ān-centred
but
JaꜤfar
2006,
women,
did
food
12:122);
an
not
12:31
they item,
isMuḥammad
This
5:307); only
angel;
threatened
Abū
Qurʾānic
awestruck Abū
educational
like
l-Layth
onel-Faraj of
fruit,
ꜤAlī
by
to Muḥammad
ibn
detail,
ibn
passage
kill
ꜤAbd
Jarīr
Joseph’s bothal-
(verses
tradition.
themselves
al-BiqāꜤī
al-Samarqandī
al-Jawzīal-Raḥmān (d.
representing
beauty,
if Joseph
ibn
(d. (d.
1200)1480)
30–34)—indeed,
ibn cutibn
Jabr
Ibn
Aḥmad
983) (Ibn
their
ibn
wouldal-
(BiqāꜤī
(Samar-
theal-Jawzī
same
hands.
al-Qurashī
Arabı̄’s
al-Qurṭubī
the2003,
listen (d.
essential
whole
But(d.
to686–7).
4:34–35);
2002, theof
722)
them,
(d.
4:167);
the Muḥ
interpr
sūra
differen
(Mujā
(Ib
and
Fa
but accidentally
tional affiliations. main cut their hands. Others
contention was leave
that the food item
children oughtout and simply
to2002, they were
learn say serious
literacy that the and ꜤAbdallāh
in carrying
arithmetic out
ibnthe ꜤUmar threat,
as theyas
al-Bayḍāwī
well deliberately
Arabic (d. 1996,
1286) cut their
(Bayḍ ha
know what they were doing and
Abstract: 12 ofṬabarī
Sūraaccidentally the (d. their
cut 923) ꜤAlī (Ṭabarī
ibn
hands Zulaykhā,
Submitted
while
qandī
1909,
al-Jawzī 1993,
feeling
for12:122);
(d. of1200)
possible
thinking
2:159–160);
Abū
open
that namely,
vindicated
(Ibn
they l-Layth
accessal-Jawzī
were
Abū
that
before
two Isḥāq
the
al-Samarqandī
cutting sidesiswomen’s
the
positions al-ThaꜤlabī
women,
the
4:167); (d.
isissues
Fakhr
only Muḥammad
cutting
says
a2.
983)of
one(d. that
Traditional 1035)
of
(Samar- Shawkānī
their
interpretation
al-Dīn of Joseph
Abū
detail,ibn ꜤUmar
(Tha‘labī
hands
ꜤAbdallāh
Muslim will
both of(d.either
Sulaymān was
the 1834)
2004,
al-Rāzī ando
Interpretation
incident
representing (Shawkānī
3:372);
(d.(d.767) 1210)
involuntaryofthe theof (Rāzī
women’s
same
(Muqātil
3:26);
1938,
act essentia
Qurʾān on thei
12:31
2003, 18A
cut
women, awestruck byQurʾān,
Joseph’s Joseph,
beauty, tells the
cutstory their the
hands. prophetBut Joseph.
the He
difference ticle bought between
gives as
details slave
the of Iṣlāḥīʾs
al-Gharnāṭī interpretation
(d. 1344) of the
(Abū Ḥayyān
Qurʾānic verse
1992, in 6:267–
questio
food item,Mustansir Mir Aḥsan language
qandī 1993, before
2:159–160); her they Maḥmūd
wish
publication Abū could
orꜤUmar
under ibn move
betheargues
Isḥāq ꜤUmar
imprisoned
terms position
al-ThaꜤlabī
and con-on and to
al-Zamakhsharīlearn
accepted
(d. humiliated;
1035) by the
(Tha‘labī (d.
most holy1144)
Muḥammad
classical
2004, text.
(Zamakhsharīand
3:372); Hemodern,
1854) ibn maintained
(Ᾱlūsī,
ꜤAbdallāh n.d.,
Aḥmad 13:229–230);
Sunnī2:253.); and that
al-Qurṭubī IbnShīꜤī, such
Rashīḍ (d.
mufassirūn Riḍā
1272) (d.
(Q
(“Q
Muḥammad ibn al-Rāzī (d. 1210)
namely, hands,
(Rāzī that athe
1938, number 18:126–127);
women’s of general
cuttingAbū and
of Ṭabarī
specific
their hands issues.
was But
3 an our
involuntary particular act
Did the some Egyptian like
wished to succeed namely,
byfruit.
Noblewomen
two
where
Amīn
anpositions
Egyptian
tempt Zulaykhā
to that
seduce
high
is
had
only
him,
Iṣlāḥī
official,
thepreliminary
Maḥmūd
one
failed,
women’s
differs
and isand,
Cut
whose
of
ibn
from
detail,
ꜤUmar
Muḥammad
ridiculed
cutting unable
Their
educational
of
this
wife—tradition
both
ditions
Josephtoher
bytheir
view.
ꜤAṭiyya
of prays
He
Hands?
representingcalls
the Creative
al-Zamakhsharī
persuade
peers
hands to
Aḥmad
for
her
al-Andalusī
ibnpreparation Commons
God
Joseph
washer
that
Zulaykhā—makes
the
for
(d.
in
failure
an
same
exegetes”),
the
At-
the
Amīn
(d.was
protection
1144)
al-Qurṭubī
women
essential
1147) such
a (d.
(Zamakhsharī
position
beginning,
to
involuntary do so.
(Ibn
an
as
prerequisite
against
terest,
She
act
unsuccessful
interpretation,
interpretation
ꜤAṭiyya
the
1272)
accepted
invites
on to the
their
following:
n.d.,
which
calls
ꜤAbdallāh
2007,
women’s
(Qurṭubī
them by for
at-
2:253.);
we
most
“stunned
part,
The
for
Kathīr
3:239);
them
awill
toaal-BiqāꜤī
generally
re-evaluating
ibn
(d.
Muḥammad
Abū
machinations,
1967,Ibn
confine
classical
by to
his
1373)
ꜤUmar ꜤAlī
benefit
our
9:179–180);
and
accepted
qandī
[Joseph’s]
some
(Ibnal-Faḍl
al-Bayḍāwī
and
(d.
from
discussion,
modern, God
1993,
923)
crucial
Kathīr
Thanāʾullāh
answer
ibn
beauty.”Sunnī
(Ṭabarī
aspects
1983,
al-
(d.
learning
is,
2:159–160);
to
1286)
Why
and
According
the
of
4:23–24);
al-Maẓharī
1909,
the
did
ShīꜤī,
Abū
12:122)
question
Qurʾānic
(Bayḍāwī
Burhān
the al-Pā
wom
mufass
to Isḥāq
som 1
Ḥasan (d.ꜤAbd1480) (BiqāꜤī 2003, 4:34–35); Muḥamm ꜤAbdu
ꜤAṭiyya ꜤAbdallāh
al-Andalusī tribution
grants (d. ibn (CC BY)
his
1147) ꜤUmar al-Ṭabarsī
license
prayer.
(Ibn ꜤAṭiyya
al-Bayḍāwī (d.
(http://crea- 1153)
ꜤAbdallāh
2007, (d. (Ṭabarsī
3:239);
1286)
exegetes”), hands Abū 2006,
ꜤAbbās
(Bayḍāwī with
such ꜤAlī 5:307);
as al-Faḍl
the1968,
the Abū
al-Gharnāṭī
knives ibn
1:493);
following: Pānīpatī
l-Faraj
thatal-(d. 1344)
ꜤAbbās
Zulaykhā
Abū 2007,
Ḥayyān (Abū 4:24);
al-Raḥmān
had Ḥayyān
Abū
provided ibn Muḥammad
ꜤUmar 1992,
them? 6:267–269);
n Iṣlāḥīʾsthey Interpretation
threatened to kill themselves
banquet,
position of
Copyright: © 2021 byḤasan
the
handsif them
accepted Qurʾān
JosephbyQur would
knives,
most ānand
al-Ṭabarsī
the authors.
and
not
Youngstown
classical 12:31
listen
presents
al-Gharnāṭī
appreciate
and
This
(d.
to Joseph
State
1153)
them,
modern,
ꜤAlī
Qurʾānic
(d. ibn
and,
University,before
(Ṭabarsī
1344)
its
to
Sunnī
al-Jawzī
passage
semantics
convince
Youngstown,
them.
2006,
(Abū
and
(d.
Upon Joseph
1200)
Ḥayyān
(verses
5:307);
OHseeing
ShīꜤī,
ibn This
(Ibn
(Ibn
thatUSA;
44555,
mufassirūn ibn
al- mmir@ysu.edu
him,
Keywords:
al-Jawzī
30–34)—indeed,
Abū 1992,
Jabr l-Faraj
Arabı̄,
the
6:267–269);
al-Qurashī ꜤAbd
women
(“Qurʾānic
2002,
(d.
the
(d.
by
Qurʾān; 686–7).
ascut
4:167);
Kathīr
ꜤImād
al-Raḥmānwhole
722)
cited
Joseph’s
Qurʾānic
Shawkānī
(d.
(Ibn
by
ofn.d.,
Fakhr
al-Dīn
(Mujāhid ibn
beauty, Ibn
exegesis;
theal-Dīn
1373)
(d. 1834)
4:262);
(Ibn
sūra—raises,
IsmāꜤīl
2005,
Khald
Maḥmūd
Abū
1987,
thought
Kathīr
ꜤAṭiyya
Iṣlāḥī;
Muḥammad
ibn
p,
(Shawkānī
117).
p.
ūn,
Amīn
ꜤAbdallāh
1983,
196);
ibn ii,
that
be-1987,
Abū
they
Aḥsan
4:23–24);
Abū
p.
1996,
al-Ṭāhir
l-Ḥasan
355.
were l-Ḥajjāj
al-Zamakhsh
Iṣlāḥī; using
3:26);
ibn
Burhān
Mujāh
Joseph;
Muqātil
Abū
ꜤᾹshūr
kniv
al-D
Z
l
they were serious inexegetes”),
carrying
their hands out theSee
with
such threat,
the
as the alsothey
knives deliberately
they
following:
Ayyad are holding
2021, cut their
(Qurʾān
pp. hands
27–28). 12:31).with In knives.
According
his to ar-
classical ꜤAbdallāh
the generally
Egyptian
book ibn ꜤAbbās
but
accepted
noblewomen
al- Awās accidentally
1854) (d.
im 686–7).
min
(Ᾱlūsī, cut(Ibn
al-qawāsim theirꜤAbbās
13:229–230); al-Andalusī
hands.(p. Others
178),
Rashīḍ p. (d.
196);
Ibn leave
Riḍā 1147)
Abū the
(d. (Ibnfoo
l-Ḥaj
1935
Submitted for possibleꜤAlī sides Muḥammad ofibn ꜤUmar al-Rāzī (d. 1210) (Rāzī 1938, .women’s
ꜤAbdallāh
al-BiqāꜤī Ashraf
18:126–127);
(d. 1480) ꜤAlī
(BiqāꜤī
ꜤUmarThānawī
Abū aꜤAbdallāh
2003, (d.
4:34–35); 1943) Muḥammad
(Thānawī 1935 ib
inthe issues interpretation of the incident of the cutting of their
openibn
soal-Jawzī (d. 1200) (Ibn al-Jawzī 2002, 4:167); Fakhr al-Dīn Abū
access
ticle gives details of exegetical
ꜤAbdallāh view, ibntheyꜤAbbāsof the
do Qurʾānic
because Kathīr
Abstract: (d.
Sūra
verse
they 1373)
12
were ofsothe
question
ꜤAbbās
Citation:
(Ibn Kathīr
Qurʾān,
awestruck
Mir,and 1983,
Joseph,
discusses
by
Mustansir. Joseph’s4:23–24);
Sulaymān
tells
2021.Abū how thethat
Whybeauty
story
ibn Burhān
(d. of
that
Jabr 767)
the al-Dīn
they (Muqātil
prophet
al-Qurashī did Abū
women,not Joseph.
(d. l-Ḥasan
2003,
Muḥammad He
awestruck
722) isibn
2:147); bought
(Mujāhid Ḥasan
Abū
by as
Thanāʾullāh JaꜤfar
Joseph’s
2005, slave
al-Ṭabarsī p,Muḥammad
beauty,
117).
al-Maẓharī(d. Abū1153) ibn
(Ṭabarsī
cut al-Pānīpa
their
l-Ḥasan Jarīr
han M
Mir publication under the al-
terms and con-(d.
Arabı̄ urged686–7).
ꜤUmar
(Ibn
parents Muḥammad 1987,
to(BiqāꜤī
imbue p.
ibn 196);
their
Aḥmad l-Ḥajjāj
children
al-Qurṭubī Mujāhid
with (d. faith 1272)
3Shawkānī (ı̄mān)
ꜤAbdallāh (Muḥammad
(Qurṭubī
(d. and
1834) teach
1967,
(ShawkānīShafīꜤ them
9:179–180);1990,
1996, literacy
5:50);
3:26); Abū Abū l-AꜤlā
l-Tha M
interpretation calls for re-evaluating
knowibn what they someMuḥammad
crucial
were doing(d. by
and anibn
al-BiqāꜤī
aspects Egyptian
ofhands,
accidentally the (d. high a
al-Rāzī
1480)
Qurʾānic
cut number
Did2005,their
the
(d.
official,
story
hands
Egyptian
of
1210)
whose
of general
2003, (Rāzī
Joseph.
while
Noblewomen Ṭabarī
4:34–35); and
1938,
wife—tradition
thinking specific
(d.18:126–127);
Muḥammad
Cut Sulaymānthat923) calls issues.
(Ṭabarī
they were her (d. Abū
ibn 1909,
two ꜤAlī
But
Zulaykhā—makes
cutting
767) ouribn
12:122);
positions
(Muqātil
Pānīpatī
particular
Muḥammad Abūan
is
2003,
2007, only point
ꜤAlī
l-Layth
unsuccessful al-
ibn
one
2:147);
4:24); Abū
of in-
al-Samarqandī
at-
al-Jawzī
of Abūdetail,
MuḥammadJaꜤfar(d.
both 1200) (d.
Muḥammad 983)
(Ibn
representing
ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥa (Sam
al-Ja i
Jabr al-Qurashī 722) (Mujāhid ꜤAbdallāh p, 117).
ꜤUmar Abū l-Ḥasan Muqātil ibn 1972a, 1949–1972b, Ḥayyān
ibn al-Bayḍāwī (d. her 1286) (Bayḍāwī 1968, 1:493); Abū a2:397); Muḥammad
4
food item, and arithmetic. After that, they should encourage them to learn by heart some topre-Islamic
ditions of the Creative Commons At- 1854) (Ᾱlūsī, 13:229–230); Rashīḍ Riḍā (d. 1935)was (R1
Muḥammad tempt ibn
Shawkānī terest,
to seduceAḥmad (d. to
him, which
1834)al-Qurṭubī
and we
(Shawkānī
is will
ridiculed (d. confine1272)
1996,
qandī
by Heour
her peers discussion,
(Qurṭubī
3:26);
1993,
Ṭabarī Abū
2:159–160);
for 1967,
l-Thanāʾ is,
failure Why
9:179–180);
Abū
namely, Maḥmūd
to do did
Isḥāqso.
that the women
al-Ᾱlūsī
al-ThaꜤlabī
She
the invites
Muḥammad
women’s cut
(d.
them(d. their1035)
cutting ꜤUmar
(Tha‘labī
ibnal-Samarqandī
of their 2004,
al-Rāzī
hands 3:37
(d.
someSulaymān
tribution (CC BY) license
like
(d. Article
fruit.
767) Amīn
(Muqātil
(http://crea-
Aḥsan 2003, Iṣlāḥī differs
Their
2:147);
al-Gharnāṭī
Hands?
Abū from Amīn
JaꜤfar
(d.
this
Aḥsan
1344)
view.Iṣlāḥīʾs
Muḥammad (Abū
argues
Ḥayyān ibnthat (d.
Jarīr
1992,
the
923) al-women
(Ṭabarī
6:267–269); n.d., 1909,4:262);
ꜤImād
12:122);
(Ṭabāṭabāʾī Muḥammad
al-Dīn
Abū
2002,
l-Layth al-Ṭāhir
12:149).
IsmāꜤīl ibn ibn ꜤᾹshūr (d.
(d. 91
Youngstown
Keywords: Qurʾān;State University,
Qurʾānic epicꜤAbdallāh
Youngstown,
toexegesis; Iṣlāḥī; poetry
OH
Amīn ibn
44555,
banquet,
Aḥsan ꜤUmar
and
1854)USA; hands
teach
(Ᾱlūsī,
mmir@ysu.edu
hands
Iṣlāḥī; with
al-Bayḍāwī
them
Joseph; them the
13:229–230);
knives, knives
(d.
parsing
Zulaykhā; of and1286) that
toRashīḍ
presents
Potiphar’sandZulaykhā
(Bayḍāwī
Maḥmūd Riḍāsome
Joseph
wife; (d.
ibn had
1968,
1.beforeꜤUmar provided
1:493);
declension.
1935) them. Muḥammad
(RashīḍAbū them?
al-Zamakhsharī
Upon
position Ḥayyān
During
Riḍā
seeing
accepted Thanāʾullāh
n.d.,
him, the
(d. 12:293);
the
by1144)second
women
Muḥammadmost al-Maẓharī
cutdecade
(Zamakhsharī
classical ibn Aḥmad
and al-Pānīpatī
of
n.d.,
modern, 2:253.);
al-Qurṭ Sun(dI
wished Ṭabarī succeed
(d. 923) where
(Ṭabarī Zulaykhā had failed, and,
Interpretation unable Qurʾān persuade
12:31. qandī
Joseph The
in 1993,
the Problem 2:159–160);
beginning, Stated
Ashraf Abū ꜤAlī Isḥāq
Thānawī al-ThaꜤlabī(d. 1943) (d.(Thānawī
1035) (Tha‘labī
1935, 5:782
Egyptian noblewomen
they qandī
threatened 1993,life,
to kill Why
al-Gharnāṭī
learners
themselves
2:159–160);
1909,
their (d.
Abū
Did12:122);
Muḥammad
were
if 1344)
hands
Religions
Joseph
Isḥāq
with theAbū
Kathīr
(Abū
assumed
2021,
the
Religions
would
al-ThaꜤlabī
Egyptian
l-Layth
(d.
12, 1373)
Ḥayyān
Thanāʾullāh
knives
not
al-Samarqandī
x. they
to
12:listen
(d.
(Ibn
1992,
become
to are
1035) them,
Kathīr
ꜤAṭiyya
holding Noblewomen
6:267–269);
al-Maẓharī more
and,
(Tha‘labī
(d.
1983,
(Qurʾān
to
983)
4:23–24);
ꜤImād
al-Pānīpatī
al-Andalusī
convince
2004,
(Samar-
12:31).
self-reliant,
Maḥmūd In
al-Dīn
ibn
Joseph
Sūra
3:372);
Burhān
(d. Pānīpatī
IsmāꜤīl
1810)
1147)
According
ꜤUmar
exegetes”),
whereupon
12,that Cut
al-Dīn
(Muḥammad
which
2007,
toThis
ibn
(Thanāʾullāh
(Ibn the
such
al-Zamakhsharī
Abū
tells
Their
4:24);
is
ꜤAṭiyya l-Ḥasan
not
generally
as
they
the
Abū
the
ShafīꜤ
anal-
ꜤAbdallāh
2007,
story
Hands?
ibn
Muḥammad
exhaustive
3:239);
accepted
following:
were
(d.1990,
of 1144)
ꜤUmar
ibn
advised
5:50);
Joseph, ꜤUmar
Abū list
(Zamakhsharī
Abū ꜤAlī
verses
ofAmīn
ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq www.mdpi.c
the
al-Faḍl
al-Bayḍāwī
to
l-AꜤlā 23–29
mufass
n.d.,
Mawd ibn
rela
H (d
Abstract: Sūra they
12 ofwerethe Qurʾān, Kathīr
Joseph, (d.exegetical
tells 1373)
the story
Pānīpatī(Ibn Kathīr
ofview,
the al-BiqāꜤī
2007, prophet
they 1983, (d.
doJoseph.
4:24); Abū
so
1480)
4:23–24);
because He (BiqāꜤī
Muḥammad is Ḥasan
Burhān
bought
they
2003,
were asso a4:34–35);
ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq
al-Dīn
al-ṬabarsīslaveAbū
awestruck (d. Muḥammad
l-Ḥasan n.d.,
Haqqānī
1153)
by ibn
(Ṭabarsī
Joseph’s ꜤUmar
4:262);
standard
(d. ibn 1911)
beauty
ꜤAlī
Muḥammad
2006, ibn
interpretation
(Ḥaqqānī
that5:307);Muḥammad
they Abū al-Ṭāhir
did of verse
l-Faraj
not
al- ꜤAbd
ibn ꜤᾹshūr
31 of(Abūsūra (d.Ḥayyān
al-Raḥmān 1973)
12. It i
sir. 2021. Why serious in carrying
ꜤUmar out the threat, https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
they deliberately cut their hands ꜤAṭiyya
with al-Andalusī
knives. This ar- ꜤAbdallāh
(d.
1972a, 1147) (Ibn
1949–1972b, ꜤAzīz ꜤAṭiyya
al-Gharnāṭī
ꜤAbbās 2007,
2:397); (d. 1344)
4 3:239);
Muḥammad AbūꜤAbbās ꜤAlī Ḥusal-F
lewomen Cut by an Egyptianticle
Maḥmūd ibn
highgives
official,
ꜤAṭiyya
memorize
whose
details
Aḥsan
al-BiqāꜤī (d.
wife—tradition
of Iṣlāḥīʾs (d. know
a1480)
part
al-Zamakhsharī
n.d.,
interpretation whatIṣlāḥīʾs
calls
4:262);
of
(BiqāꜤī her
they
the
ofꜤAṭiyya
(d. Book
Shawkānī
2003,
1144)
Zulaykhā—makes
Muḥammad
were
the Qurʾānic doing Interpretation
of1834)
(d.and
4:34–35); God.
(Zamakhsharī
Muḥammad
al-Ṭāhir
verse an
accidentally
Inibn
(Shawkānī
ꜤAlī
his
ꜤᾹshūr
unsuccessful
in question ibn
ꜤAlī
ibn
al-Jawzī
cutḤasan
and
Ah
n.d.,Egyptian2:253.);
1996,
their .
ꜤAlī
at-
(d. of
kām
hands
3:26);
ibn
1973)
(d.
al-Ṭabarsī
discusses
call her
Qurʾān
al-Qur
high
Ibn
1200)
while
how
Abū
Ashraf
Muḥammad
(Ibn
official
(Ibn
ān,
thinking ꜤAlī
l-Thanāʾ
ꜤᾹshūr
should
(d.(Ṭabāṭabāʾī
that 1153)
ibn al-Jawzī
Jabr
Ibn12:31
called
Thānawī
al-1984,
that
(Ṭabarsī
ibn
al-
Maḥmūd
suffice 2002,
they toArabı̄
(d.
12:263);
2002,
al-Qurashī
show
4:167);
were
Kathīr
2006,12:149).
(d.
(Potiphar
al-Ᾱlūsī
1943) that
cutting
(d.
5:307);
(d.
686–7).
detailed
(Thānawī
Fakhr
1373)
722)Abū
(d.
the
(Ibn
of thethe
said
al-Dīn
(Ibn
(Mujāhid
Bible)—follow
1935,
Kathīr
l-Faraj Abū 5:78);
interpretation
ꜤAbd ꜤAbdal
1983,
2005,
1987
M
4:2
al-R
p, 1h
Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs tempt to seduce him, and is calls
al-Andalusī
teaching
Shawkānī
ridiculed by her some
1147) (Ibn
method
(d.
peers1834)
Ashraf
food he
ꜤAlī
foritem, her would
1854)
(Shawkānī failure
Thānawī
Academic
likeaspects
2007,
(Ᾱlūsī,
to1996,
fruit. do
(d.
Editor:
3:239);
recommend
ofso.
Amīn
13:229–230);
3:26);
1943) She
Roberto
Aḥsan
Abū for
Abū
invites
(Thānawī
Muḥammad
Tottoli l-Thanāʾ
Iṣlāḥī them
al-Faḍl
pupils,
Rashīḍ
ꜤAlī ofto
1935,
differs ibn
ibn
Riḍā
aMaḥmūd
5:78);
from
ibnasZulaykhā—makes
ꜤUmar
al-Jawzī
al-
he
(d.
Muḥammad
this saw
1935)
(Muḥammad
al-Ᾱlūsī
al-Rāzī
view.
(d. 1200)Hebeing
exegetical(Rashīḍ
(d.(d.
ShafīꜤ ShafīꜤ
1210)
argues
(Ibn
an
applied
Riḍā
tradition
(d.(Rāzī
that
al-Jawzī
unsuccessful
1990,
1976) n.d.,
the1938,
al-BiqāꜤī in(d.
5:50);
behind
women
2002,
some
12:293);
Abū attempt
it. of
18:126–127);
1480)
4:167);
l-AꜤlā
(BiqāꜤī
Fakhr
theAbū to
Mawdūdīseduce
2003,
al-Dīn ꜤAbdal
4:34–
Abū
(
Ḥasan al-Ṭabarsī
interpretation for re-evaluating
(d. 1153) (Ṭabarsī some crucial
2006,
Muḥammad 5:307); Abū the Qurʾānic
l-Faraj
Thanāʾullāh ꜤAbd story women
al-Raḥmān
al-Maẓharī
Joseph. inibn the
al-Pānīpatī city,
1972a,
Sulaymān
This very
(d.is likely
1949–1972b,not
1810) (d.
an her767) peers,
exhaustive
(Thanāʾullāh
2:397);
(Muqātil 4ridicule
list al-
Muḥammad
2003,
of her,
the 2:147);
saying
mufassirūn
Ḥusayn
Abū
that J“
ān 12:31. 1. Thebanquet,
Problem hands them knives, and
Stated ꜤAlī2021,
eastern
ibn al-Jawzī
1854)
presents Islamic
(Ᾱlūsī,
Mustansir Joseph
wished Mir
(Muḥammadtolands
13:229–230);
before succeed them. which Rashīḍ
Upon
ShafīꜤ
where
(d. 1200) (Ibn al-Jawzī 2002, 4:167); Fakhr al-Dīn Muḥammad
he Riḍā
seeing
1990,
Zulaykhā visited:
5:50); (d.
him, hadAbū 1935)
the
Muḥammad women
l-AꜤlā
failed, (Rashīḍ
Abūand, cut
Mawdūdī
ibn
unable
hasꜤAbdallāh
Riḍā Aḥmad
gone astray”
(d.n.d.,
ibn ꜤUmar
to 1979)
persuade 12:293);
Ṭabarī
(innā
(Mawdūdī
al-Qurṭubī Joseph
al-Rāzī(d. 923)
la-narāhā in (d. 1949–
Shawkānī
the
(d. (Ṭabarī
1210)1272)
beginning,
fī ḍalālin (Rāzī (Qurṭubī
1909,(d. 1834)
1938,
12:122);
mubīnin
1967,
(Shawkānī
18:126–127);
Abū 30]).
[verse
9:179–18
l-Layth 199
Abū
1 A
their hands with
Religions
the knives
they Muḥammad
are holding Thanāʾullāh
(Qurʾān Pānīpatī
12:31).Received:
al-Maẓharī2007,
24 May 4:24);
to2021 Abū
ꜤAbdallāh
al-Pānīpatī Muḥammad
(d.ibn Ḥusayn
1810)ꜤUmar ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq
(Ṭabāṭabāʾī
(Thanāʾullāh 3.and, Haqqānī
Iṣlāḥī’s2002,
al- (d.1982)
(d.12:149).
standard interpretation of verse 31 of sūra 12. It is a fa
1911) (Ḥaqqānī
Interpretation www.mdpi.com/journal/religions
Ḥayy
Keywords:
tells Qurʾān; Qurʾānic they 1972a,
threatened
exegesis; Iṣlāḥī; to According
1949–1972b,
Amīnkill Aḥsan 2:397);
themselves the
Iṣlāḥī;
4 generally
if Muḥammad
Joseph
Joseph; accepted
would
Zulaykhā; not
Muḥammad listen
Potiphar’s ibnal-Ṭabāṭabāʾī
toal-Bayḍāwī
them,
2: Aḥmad
wife; (d.
to 1286)
convince
al-Qurṭubī (Bayḍāwī
1854)Joseph(Ᾱlūsī,
that
(d.the 1968,
1272) 1:493);
13:229–230);
(Qurṭubī Abū Rashīḍ
1967,
In Sūra 12, which Muḥammad the story ibn ꜤUmar
of
The Joseph, verses
al-Rāzī
people’s 23–29
(d.method
1210)
n.d., relate
(Rāzī
4:262);in how
271938,
education
Muḥammadthe wife
18:126–127); isof the
Abū
remarkable,
al-Ṭāhir ꜤAbdallāh
(verses
ibn 30–34)
ꜤᾹshūr should
according
(d. qandī
1973) suffice1993,to
towith
(Ibn 2:159–160);
ꜤᾹshūr
show
which that
the
1984, Abū
child saidIsḥāq
12:263); al-ThaꜤlabī
interpretation
is has (d
0/xxxxx exegetical view, they do so becausePānīpatī
they 2007,
were so4:24);
(Ṭabāṭabāʾī Abū
awestruck Accepted:
Muḥammad
by
2002, Joseph’s
12:149).July ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq
2021
beauty that they
al-Gharnāṭī Haqqānī
did not
(d.
ꜤAbdallāh (d.
1344) 1911)
This
(Abū
ꜤUmar Ḥayyān
(Ḥaqqānī
is notThe an exhaustive
1992,
Pakistani 6:267–269);
Muḥammad list
Qurʾānic ofꜤImād
the
exegete, mufassirūn
Thanāʾullāh al-Dīn
Amīn who
IsmāꜤīl
Aḥsan
al-Maẓh
Egyptian high official Egyptian
called
Muḥammad ꜤAzīz (Potiphar
noblewomen ibn Aḥmad they were
of the serious
al-Qurṭubī in
Bible)—following
Ashraf
carrying
(d.
Published: 1272)
ꜤAlī
out
Thānawī
9 August
the
tradition,
Youngstown
(Qurṭubī threat,
State we they
will deliberately
University,
1967,
2021 (d. 1943) (Thānawī
ibn
Youngstown,
9:179–180);
Zulaykhā
cut
1935,
their
OH
exegetical
5:78);
arranges
hands
al-Bayḍāwī
Maḥmūd
44555, USA;
tradition
Muḥammad
a ibn knives.
ꜤUmar
(d.
mmir@ysu.edu
banquet, behind
ShafīꜤ
to
This
1286) it.
(d.
which
ar-
(Bayḍāwī
al-Zamakhsharī
1976)
she
1968,
invites
1:493);
(d.
those1144) wom
A(
know what they were doing and accidentally n.d., taken
4:262); to
cut the
Muḥammad
their maktab
hands al-Ṭāhir
while [where ibn ꜤᾹshūr
thinking literacy
that they(d.
Kathīr is
1973)
were learned]
(d. (Ibn
cutting
1373) (IbnꜤᾹshūr once
standard1984,
Kathīr he becomes
12:263);
interpretation
1983, 4:23–24); sensible.
of verse
Burhān 31 After
of sūra 12. It isMuḥamm
a ibn
fairly ꜤUm r
Article call her
Citation: Mir, Mustansir. Zulaykhā—makes
2021. Why ꜤAbdallāh ticle
ibn ꜤUmar al-Bayḍāwī
an unsuccessful gives
This
attempt isdetails
not
to anof
(d.seduce
1286)Iṣlāḥīʾs
(Muḥammad him,interpretation
exhaustive
(Bayḍāwī list
whereupon
ShafīꜤ
of
1968,
1990,
of
the the
some
1:493);
5:50);
Qurʾānic
mufassirūn
al-Gharnāṭī
Abū
Abū
verse
who
Ḥayyān
l-AꜤlā
she
in1344)
Mawdūdī
hands
Urdu
question
(d.subscribe
eachꜤAṭiyya
(Abū Qurʾānic
and
to Ḥayyān
thediscusses
above-stated
al-Andalusī
(d.show
guest 1979)
arather,
knife;
how
1992,
(Mawdūdī (d.al-Dīn
commentary,
Pānīpatī 2007,
that
6:267–269);
1147)
1949–
Abū
4:24);
(Ibn l-Ḥasan
Tadabbur-i
ꜤImād
Abū
ꜤAṭiyya Qurʾān
al-Dīn
2007,
erto Tottoli some food item, like fruit. Amīn Ashraf Aḥsan he ꜤAlī
Iṣlāḥī Thānawī
passes differs
the (d.
from 1943)
this
maktab, (Thānawī
view. he Hewould 1935,
argues that
be 5:78);
al-BiqāꜤī the Muḥammad
taught(d.
women1480)penmanship, ShafīꜤ
should
(BiqāꜤī 2003, (d.
suffice
from—or1976)
to
4:34–35);
arithmetic that
Muḥammad
n.d., the
and said
rejects—the
4:262); ibn
Arabic ꜤAlī
interpretationibn
aforestated
Muḥammad Muḥammadhas
interpre
al-Ṭāhir prac ib
Did the Egyptianwomen
Noblewomenin the
Cut city, very interpretation
standard
al-Gharnāṭī (d. 1344) (Abū Ḥayyān1972a,
likely her peers, ridicule her, sayingcalls
interpretation for
that
1992, re-evaluating
of
“It verse
Abstract: 31
Note: MDPIꜤImād
is
6:267–269);clear to some
of
Sūra
us sūra crucial
12
that 12.
ofshe
al-Dīn aspects
It
Kathīr
the is a
Qurʾān,
IsmāꜤīl of
fairly
(d. the
1373)
ibn3. Qurʾānic
tells Ḥasan
representative
Joseph, (Ibn
Iṣlāḥī’s
is Ḥusayn
Kathīr
thestory
story of
list,
1983, of
al-ṬabarsīJoseph.
Interpretation though,
4:23–24);
the prophet
(d. and
Burhān
1153) Joseph.
(Ṭabarsīal-Dīn
He is Abū
bought
2006, l-Ḥasan
as
5:307); a sla
A
yWhy
Did Did
the Egyptian
the Egyptian
Noblewomen
Their Hands? Amīn Noblewomen
wished
hasAḥsan
gone Cut Their
Cut Their
astray”
Iṣlāḥīʾs Hands?
Hands?
AmīnAmīn
to succeed where Zulaykhā (Muḥammad
had failed,
fī ḍalālin should
language. ShafīꜤ
and,
suffice
After1990,
unable
Publisher’s
5:50);
to
to30]).
show
he
1949–1972b,
1persuade
Abū
that
masters bythe l-AꜤlā
Joseph
an said
all
stays
Mawdūdī
EgyptianShawkānī
in
neu-
2:397);
thehigh
interpretation
that,
4 Muḥammad
(d.(d.1979)
beginning,
oral-BiqāꜤī
part
official, has
Joseph
1834)
of(d.
whose (Mawdūdī
exegetical
(Shawkānī
practically
1480)
it,
ꜤUmar he
presented
ing
would
wife—tradition 1949–
tradition
the
ꜤAlī
(BiqāꜤī
1996,
of the
whole
2003,
before
be behind
3:26);
verse
calls
the
Abū
(Iṣlāḥī
Ashraf
weight
4:34–35);
consigned
her of
(d.
it.women;
ꜤAlī
l-Thanāʾ 1982)Maḥmūd
2001–2002,
the
Muḥammad
Zulaykhā—makestoThānawī
the 4:208–210).
ibn
an(d.ꜤAlī al-Ᾱlūsī
ibnHere
1943)
unsuccessful (Thā
Muḥ
1
they Article (innā
threatened to
la-narāhā
Kathīr
kill
(d. 1373)
themselves
(Ibn
1972a,
if Joseph
mubīnin
Kathīr 1983,
1949–1972b,
would
[verse
not
4:23–24);
tral
2:397);
listen to
A
them,
series
4 Burhān
with
(Ṭabāṭabāʾī regard
2002,
Article
Muḥammad
and,
ofto
al-Dīn
to
events Abūfollow
jurisdictional
12:149).
convince Ḥusayn
1854)
l-Ḥasan
(Ᾱlūsī,
Joseph
ibn the
that women
13:229–230); (d. are
The
Rashīḍ
ibn
stunnedal-Jawzī
Pakistani
1982) Riḍā by (d.
Qurʾānic
(d.
1200)
Joseph’s
1935)
(Ibn
beauty,
exegete,
(Rashīḍ
al-Jawzī
Amīncut their
Riḍā
2002,
Aḥsan
n.d.,
4:167
hands
Iṣlāḥ
12:29
Interpretation of (verses
Qurʾān 12:31.
30–34) 2: 1. The Problem Stated Keywords:
exegetical Qurʾān;
tradition Qurʾānic
behind exegesis;
it.
tempt to Iṣlāḥī;
seduce
ibn ꜤAlī Amīn
him, andAḥsan
Shawkānī is Iṣlāḥī;
(d.
ridiculed Joseph;
1834) by 1.her Zulaykhā;
(Shawkānī
MuḥammadIn
peers versefor (Muḥammad
Potiphar’s
1996,
30,
her
ibn ꜤUmar
the3:26); wife;
women,
failure toAbūdo
al-Rāzī ShafīꜤ
l-Thanāʾ 1990,
criticizing
so. She
(d. invites
1210) 5:50);
Maḥmūd
Zulaykhā
them
(Rāzī Abū
193ta
san
1
Aḥsan
Iṣlāḥīʾs
Iṣlāḥīʾs
Interpretation
WhyInterpretation
Did theof
Religions 12: x. Qurʾān
of Qurʾān
12:31
12:31 al-BiqāꜤī (d. 1480)muqri
they were serious in carrying out (Ṭabāṭabāʾī
Egyptian Noblewomen
Why Did
Cutthe
Their
Egyptian
Shawkānī
In Hands?
Sūra Noblewomen
Amīn
(d.
12,
(BiqāꜤī 2003,
Cut Their H
the threat,Egyptian
1834)
which
they
[Qur
2002,
(Shawkānī
tells the
4:34–35);
ān
12:149).
deliberately This
noblewomen
story 1996,
of
Muḥammadwho
instructor]
claims
cut
tional
3:26);
Joseph,
is
in published
not
their an
hands
banquet,
affiliations.
Abūverses
maps
l-Thanāʾ
with
23–29
and
exhaustive
hands
would
Muḥammad
ibn Muḥammad
institu-
knives.
Maḥmūd
list
them
relate
teach
of
This
1854)
how
the
ar-
knives,
him
Joseph
(Ᾱlūsī,
al-Ᾱlūsī
the and
wife
al-Urdu
mufassirūn
3.
Thanāʾullāh
(d.
the
is
Iṣlāḥī’s not
13:229–230);
presents
of the
Book
a mortal
Qurʾānic
who
Muḥammadis
Joseph
of
subscribe
Interpretation
al-Maẓharī Rashīḍ
clear
God.
human
before
commentary,
to to
al-Pānīpatī
1972a,
He
but
Riḍā
us
them.
ibn
the
that
[i.e.,
an angel;
1949–1972b,
(d.
Upon
Aḥmad she 1935)
the
Tadabbur-i
above-stated
(d. 1810)
has
seeing
al-Qurṭubīhim,
Qurʾān
(Thanāʾullāh
2:397);
(Rashīḍ
gone the 4 Muḥ
Riḍā
astray!”
women
(d.
(“R
1272 n.
Th c
021 Zulaykhā arranges a banquet, to which child] shewould,
invites those
on awomen; daily Zulaykhā, feeling vindicated before the h.women,
izb12:149). says that Jos
thebasis, memorize a4:24);
quarter, aPakistani
half, or arejects—the
whole ofthough,
ashamāta,
standard interpretation of verse
Pānīpatī 31 ofsubscribe
2007, sūra 12. It from—or
is aMuḥammad
fairly rather, ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq
representative list, aforestated and interpretation
ticle gives details
she handsCitation:
of Iṣlāḥīʾs
Mir,
Egyptian
each guest
interpretation
Mustansir.
1854) a high 2021.
(Ᾱlūsī,
knife;
This
Why ofIṣlāḥī’s
iscalled
not
3.
13:229–230);
official
the
an Qurʾānic
exhaustive
ꜤAzīz
Rashīḍ
verse
Riḍālist
Interpretation
(Potiphar
in
(d.
question
ofofthe their
1935)
and
hands discusses
mufassirūn
(Rashīḍ
Bible)—followingwithRiḍā who
thehow that
Muḥammad
knives
n.d., they Abū
12:293);
tradition, toThanāʾullāh
are
we Thethe
holding
will above-stated
ꜤAbdallāh Qurʾānic
al-Maẓharī
elements
(Qurʾān ibn (Ṭabāṭabāʾī
ꜤUmar
of
12:31). exegete,
malāma,
According Haqqānī
al-Pānīpatī2002,
al-BayḍāwīAmīn
to the (d.
Aḥsan
(d. and 1911)
1810)iddi
generally
(d. 1286) Ꜥ(Ḥaqq
Iṣlāḥī (Than
āʾ, 5(d.
accept
(Bayḍ th
her wish ing or ofbe theimprisoned
verse (Iṣlāḥī and humiliated;
2001–2002, 4:208–210). Here, follo
nsir
Mustansir
Mir
DPI stays neu-
Mir interpretation Did the
Joseph is presented Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation of
calls for re-evaluating
Egyptian
call Muḥammad
her standard
Noblewomen
Zulaykhā—makes
before
some
Cut
Thanāʾullāh
the women; Aḥsan
Qurʾān
[which Iṣlāḥīʾs
12:31 Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31
interpretation
The
an
should
crucialisaspects
half of asuffice
of the
of verse
Pakistani Qurʾānic
al-Maẓharī
unsuccessful
exegetical
al-Pānīpatī
attemptof to
thirtieth,
Qurʾānic
31
tradition
sūrashow ‘juz
story
12.
exegetical
exegete,
to(d.seduce
behind
that
of ’].athe
n.d.,
Joseph.
It view,
is
Amīnhim,
1810)
it.
Ashraf
When
Aḥsan
saidrepresentative
4:262);
fairly
(Thanāʾullāh
ꜤAlī
interpretation
dohe
theyPānīpatī
Iṣlāḥī
whereupon
memorizes
Muḥammad
so because
Joseph
Thānawī
(d. Urdu4:24);
2007,
al-1418/1997),
(d.
some to God
prays
1. 1943)In
has
theyal-Ṭāhir
list,
Qurʾānic
verse
(Thānawī
practically
werethe
though,
Abū
30,
so
al-Gharnāṭī
in for
the
whole
ibn
1935,
ꜤᾹshūr
and
commentary,
Muḥammad
schadenfreude,
awestruck
his protection
multivolume
women,
theof
(d.
5:78);
This
whole
against
the
(d.
by
1344)is1973)
weight
Qur
ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq
Tadabbur-i
and
Joseph’s
criticizing
Muḥammad
not
(Abū an(Ibn
the women’s
Zulaykhā,
ofꜤᾹshūr
ān,
Ḥayyān
boastful beauty
the
Qurʾān
Haqqānī
claim,
exhaustive
mach
that
say
1984,
1992, 12:26
(“Reflect
(d.
respectiv
they
list 1911
did
of
6:267– thn
aShafīꜤ (d. 19
jurisdictional Their Hands? Amīn Aḥsan
the women are women Pānīpatī
stunned in theshould
2007,
by city, suffice
Iṣlāḥīʾs
4:24);
very
Joseph’s Urdu
Abū to show
likely
beauty,
that the
Qurʾānic
Muḥammad
hercutpeers, said
commentary,
theirridicule
hands,
interpretation
ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq know
her,
and what
Tadabbur-i
sayingHaqqānī
exclaim
has“It
they
that
that
practically
were n.d.,
Qurʾān
(d. 1911)
is 4:262);
doing
clear the
and whole
from—or
Muḥammad
usaccidentally
(“Reflection
(Ḥaqqānī
to that she weight
rather,
Kathīr
on cut
the of
inal-Ṭāhir
their
their
(d. the
rejects—the
1373)
Qurʾān”), ibn
view,
standard
hands (Ibn ꜤᾹshūr
aforestated
that
while
differs (d.1983,
the
interpretation
thinking
Kathīr wifeinterpretation
1973) of(Ibn
of
that verse
they
4:23–24); ꜤᾹshūr
high-ranki
31
were ofand
19
sū
cutti
Burhān
Keywords: Qurʾān; Qurʾānic exegesis; Iṣlāḥī; Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī; Joseph; Zulaykhā; (Muḥammad
Potiphar’s wife; grants
ShafīꜤ his
1990, prayer.
is
5:50); clear
Abū to us
l-AꜤlā that
Mawdūdīshe has (d. gone
1979) astray!”
(Mawdūdī This st
194
aps and institu- Interpretation
YoungstownYoungstown
Mustansir
Joseph is not State
has
a
of Qurʾān
University,
n.d.,
gone Stateexegetical
12:31.
University,
4:262);
astray”Youngstown,
Muḥammad
Mir human but an angel;
mortal (innā tradition
1.
from—or
Youngstown,
OH
la-narāhāThe behind
44555,Problem
rather,
OH
al-Ṭāhir
fī USA; it.
ḍalālin
44555,
ibn Stated
ꜤᾹshūr
rejects—the
mmir@ysu.edu
USA;
mubīnin some food
aforestated
mmir@ysu.edu
(d. 1973)
[verse
Mustansir (Ibnitem,
30]).
Mir 1 ꜤᾹshūr
A likeAshraf
fruit.
interpretation
series 1984,
of ꜤAlī
Amīning
and
12:263);
events of
Thānawī
Aḥsan the verse
presents
follow (d.
al-BiqāꜤī
Iṣlāḥī (Iṣlāḥī
1943)
slave—and
differs
his should
(d.
own 2001–2002,
(Thānawī
1480)
from stranger
suffice
(BiqāꜤī
this
understand- 4:208–210).
1935,to
view. 5:78);
still,
show
2003,
He that
argues Here,
Muḥammad
that
4:34–35);shethe
that following
should
said
Muḥamm
the Sha
inte
wom fa
Received: 24 May 2021 Egyptian noblewomen
Religions 12: x. 3. Copyright:
Iṣlāḥī’s © 2021 by the
Interpretation authors.
1972a, 1949–1972b, This Qurʾānic
2:397); 4 passage
elements
Muḥammad (verses
of malāma, 30–34)—indeed,
Ḥusaynshamāta, and the
iddi
al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī Ꜥwhole
āʾ, 5 that
(d. of th
is,
19
Zulaykhā, Ashraf
(verses
feeling 30–34)
vindicated ꜤAlī2: Thānawīing
before the (d. of In
the
1943)
women, Sūra
verse 12,
(Thānawī
says which
(Iṣlāḥī
that 1935, tells
wished
2001–2002,
Joseph 5:78); the
will tostory
succeed
4:208–210).
Muḥammad
either of
do (Muḥammad
Joseph,
where
Here,
ShafīꜤ verses
Zulaykhā
following,
(d. 1.
1976) ShafīꜤ
23–29
had
In is 1990,
Shawkānī
relate
failed,
his
verse 5:50);
pleasure,
argument
30, how
and,
the Abū
the
unablein
exegetical
(d. 1834)
step
women, l-AꜤlā
that
wife
to
by of Mawdūdī
she,
tradition
(Shawkānī
the
persuade
step:
criticizing like them
behind
Joseph (d.
1996,
Zulaykhā, a
in1979)
noblewoma
it.
3:26);
the (Maw
Abū
beginnin
say: innā
Accepted: 27 July 2021 https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
3. of
Iṣlāḥī’s Interpretation
Submitted for possible open access
(Ṭabāṭabāʾī 2002,sides theIṣlāḥī
12:149). issues of1418/1997),
interpretation
schadenfreude, and ofmultivolume
the incident
boastful claim, of the wome
respectively:
Mustansir. 2021. Why
herAbstract:
wish orAbstract:
Sūra 12 ofSūra
the 12
Qurʾān, the Joseph,
Qurʾān, tells
Joseph,
the
Egyptian story
tells ofThe
the
high the
story Pakistani
prophet
official ofMawdūdī
the Qurʾānic
Joseph.
prophet
called
they ꜤAzīzHe
Joseph.
threatened is exegete,
bought
toHe
(Potiphar 1972a,
isas
kill Amīn
bought
a slave
of the
themselvesAḥsan
1949–1972b,
as aifslave (d.
2:397);
1854)
Bible)—following toslave 4 Muḥammad
(Ᾱlūsī,and, as in his
ahas
result,
13:229–230);
tradition, we willḤusayn
incur
Rashīḍ al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī
todisgrace;
3Riḍā and
(d. boa
193
Published: 9 August 2021 be (Muḥammad
imprisoned
Zulaykhāand ShafīꜤ
arranges 1990,
humiliated;
Youngstown
5:50);
a1.banquet,
In verse
State
Abū
to
Urdu
30,
whichl-AꜤlā
the
University, women,
publication
she
Qurʾānic
under
invites
Youngstown,
(d.
criticizing
the terms
those
commentary,
1979)
and con-
women;
OH 44555,
(Mawdūdī
Zulaykhā,
Tadabbur-i
say: 1949–
hands,
USA; mmir@ysu.edu innā aJoseph
is
Youngstown
Qurʾān
clear
la-narāha
number would
State
in
(“Reflection
us
fī
of not
that
ḍalālin
general
University,
their view,on
listen
she to
mubīnin
and
Youngstown,
that
the
them,
the
gone
“It
specific
wife
Qurʾān”),
and,
OH of
convince
astray!”
issues.
44555,
a USA;
This
But Joseph
ourstatem
mmir@ysu.e
high-ranking
differs par th
o
an Noblewomen Cut by an
Joseph Egyptian
prays bytoanGod
Egyptian
highfor
1972a, official,
she hands
Academic Editor:
The
highwhose
1949–1972b,
protection Pakistani
official,wife—tradition
whose
against
each guest a knife;
Roberto Tottoli
call
2:397);Qurʾānic
the callsexegete,
wife—tradition
her Muḥammad
women’s her
4 Zulaykhā—makes calls
ditions of Ḥusayn
Amīn
Zulaykhā—makes
her
the
machinations, they Aḥsan
were
Creative This
Zulaykhā—makes
an Iṣlāḥī
serious is
Commons
and
is clear to us that she has gone astray!” This terest, God At- in(Ṭabāṭabāʾī
not
(d.
an unsuccessful
unsuccessful an an
1418/1997),
unsuccessful
attempt
carrying(d. at-
out 2002,
exhaustive
to in
the
1982)
statement, at-12:149).
his
seducelist
elements
threat,
to which says of
multivolume
Muḥammad
him,
weof
they the
Iṣlāḥī, 3.mufassirūn
Iṣlāḥī’s
Thanāʾullāh
whereupon
malāma,
deliberately shamāta,
combines
will confine cut
our
who
Interpretation
some
the and
their iddi
hands
discussion, Ꜥ
subscribe
al-Maẓharī
āʾ,
with to
5 that the
knives.
is, Whyfail is, abov
al-Pānīpaof
This
didto re
th
from—or rather, rejects—the aforestated interpretation slave—and stranger still, that she should
ofand presents his own understand-
Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs
tempt
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-to tempt
seduceto him,
seduce
(ṬabāṭabāʾīandUrdu
him,
is 2002,Qurʾānic
ridiculed
and is ridiculed
12:149).by commentary,
her
women peers
byin her
forpeers
the her
city,Tadabbur-i
failure
for(CC
very
tribution her to
likely
ticle
BY) standard
Qurʾān
failure
do so.to
her
gives
license Shedo
peers,
details interpretation
(“Reflection
invites
so.
(http://crea- She5them
ridicule
of Iṣlāḥīʾs
This on
invites
to
isher, of
anverse
the
athem
saying
interpretation
not to 31
Qurʾān”),
athat of
“Itsūra
Pānīpatī
schadenfreude,
exhaustive the differs
is 12.
of It
2007,
clear
Qurʾānic
list and isusamufassirūn
4:24);
toverse
the
The fairly
Abū
that
boastfulin she representative
Muḥammad
claim,
question
Pakistani respectively:
and
who
Qurʾānic ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥa
discusses
subscribe list,how
exegete, thou
repro
to
Am th
t
2. Traditional Muslim Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31

The generally accepted answer to the question just posed is that the women were
“stunned by his [Joseph’s] beauty.” According to some interpreters, the women, dazzled
Religions 2022, 13, 179 by Joseph’s beauty, thought that they were using The knivesgenerally to cutaccepted some food answeritem, like to the fruit, question just posed is6that of 19the women
but accidentally cut their hands. Others leave the food item out and simply say that the “stunned by his [Joseph’s] beauty.” According to some interpreters, the women, da
women, awestruck by Joseph’s beauty, cut bytheir Joseph’s hands. beauty, But the thought difference that they between were the using knives to cut some food item, like
Article two positions is only one of detail, both representing but accidentally the same cut their hands.interpretation,
essential Others leave the food item out and simply say th
Article namely, he
that would
the women’s turn to
cutting whatever
of their God
women,
hands has
was awestruckan destined
involuntary by Joseph’s of education,
act on beauty,
their part, cutor their he
a would hands. discard But the difference betwee
position accepted it in toto. by most [. . . ]classical Others andofmodern, two
them, positions who and
Sunnī is
are only theone
ShīꜤī, of detail,(“Qurʾānic
majority,
mufassirūn both
would representing
[even] delay the same the essential interpret
Why Iṣlāḥīʾs
Aḥsan Did theInterpretation
Egyptian Noblewomen
of QurʾānCut Their Hands? Amīn
exegetes”),memorization
12:31 such as the following: of the Qur ān
namely, that the women’s cutting of their hands was an involuntary act on their p
and learn [instead] sciences such as fiqh, h.adı̄th, etc.
position accepted by most classical and modern, Sunnī and ShīꜤī, mufassirūn (“Qu
ꜤAbdallāh al- ꜤAbbās (Ibn ꜤAbbās
ibn Jabr
(Ibn ibn
Article
Arabı̄,(d.Ah 686–7).
. kām al-Qur
al-Qurashī (d. 722) (Mujāhid 2005, p, 117). Abū l-Ḥasan Muqātil ibn
ān, 1987,
iv, p. p.349)
exegetes”), such as the following:
196); Abū l-Ḥajjāj Mujāhid
Mustansir Mir
Sulaymān (d. 767) (Muqātil 2003, 2:147); ꜤAbdallāh
Ibn Khald ūn, while commending Abū JaꜤfar Ibn ibn al- ꜤAbbās
Muḥammad Arabı̄’s (d. ibn 686–7).
above Jarīr(Ibn al- ꜤAbbās 1987,
approach, p. 196); Abū
indicated why l-Ḥajjāj
it Mujāhid
Mustansir Mir Ṭabarī 923) Why Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut Their Hands? Amīn
was hard to adopt under the dominant religio-cultural traditions and practices of the time.
(d. (Ṭabarī 1909, 12:122); Abū ibn Jabr
l-Layth al-Qurashī (d.
al-Samarqandī (d. 722)
983) (Mujāhid 2005, p, 117). Abū l-Ḥasan Muqātil ibn
(Samar-
Religions 2021, 12, x FOR PEER Youngstown
REVIEW1993,
qandī State2:159–160);
University, Youngstown, Abū IsḥāqOH 44555,Sulaymān
al-ThaꜤlabī USA; (d. mmir@ysu.edu
1035) (d. (Tha‘labī
767) (Muqātil 2004, 2003,
3:372); 2:147); Abū 2 of JaꜤfar
8 Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al
According
Maḥmūd
Youngstown ibnState
to such traditions
ꜤUmar University,al-Zamakhsharī
Youngstown, OH
and practices,
(d. 44555, Ṭabarī
1144)
learning
(d.mmir@ysu.edu
(Zamakhsharī
USA; 923) (Ṭabarī the
n.d.,1909, Qur ān byAbū
12:122);
2:253.); Ibn
heart l-Layth wasal-Samarqandī
given ultimate (d. 983) (Samar
priority
Abstract:
ꜤAṭiyyaSūra
for12 the
al-Andalusī of theblessings
Qurʾān, Joseph,
(d. 1147) (Ibntells
it would ꜤAṭiyya the story incur
qandī
2007, of the upon
1993,
3:239); prophet theꜤAlī
2:159–160);
AbūJoseph.
child Abū
He
al-Faḍl
and Isḥāq hisasparents,
ibn al-al-ThaꜤlabī
is bought a slave (d. as 1035)
Ibn Khald (Tha‘labī ūn2004, 3:372)
explained.
by an
Ḥasan Egyptian
Mustansir Because
high Mir official, it
whose was not
wife—tradition always Maḥmūd calls guaranteed
her ibn ꜤUmar
Zulaykhā—makes that the
al-Zamakhsharī an pupil
unsuccessful would
(d. 1144)
at- commit
(Zamakhsharī himself n.d., 2:253.); Ibn
Abstract:
2. al-Ṭabarsī Sūra
Traditional 12 of
(d.Muslimthe Qurʾān,
1153) (Ṭabarsī Joseph,
Interpretation tells
2006, 5:307); the story
of Qurʾān of
Abū l-Faraj 12:31 ꜤAbd al-Raḥmān ibn
the prophet Joseph. He is bought as a slave
tempt
toꜤAlī this
by to
anseduce
ibn blessed
Egyptian
al-Jawzī him, high
(d. and
task, is ridiculed
official,
1200) childhood
(Ibn whoseal-Jawzī by heryearspeers
wife—tradition
2002, ꜤAṭiyya for
were
4:167); her
callsal-Andalusī
failure
thought
Fakhr to do
her Zulaykhā—makes
al-Dīn (d.
ofso.1147)
Abū She
as the(Ibn
invites
ꜤAbdallāh anmost ꜤAṭiyya
themauspicious
unsuccessful to2007,
a at-3:239);time Abū ꜤAlī to al-Faḍl ibn al
do
banquet, Thethem generally accepted answer toḤasanthe question
al-Ṭabarsī just (d.posed
1153) is that
(Ṭabarsī the2006, women 5:307); were
Abū l-Faraj ꜤAbd al-Raḥmān ibn
tempthands knives, and presents Joseph before them. Upon seeing him, theinvites
women cut to
byꜤUmar ꜤAbdallāh
itMuḥammad
(see to seduce
also ibn
Tritton, him, andal-Rāzī
p. is ridiculed
85; (d.
Graham 1210) by her
(Rāzī
and peers1938, for
Kermani her failure
18:126–127); 2006, toAbū dop. so.121; She USA;them a pp.
“stunned his [Joseph’s] Youngstown
beauty.” According
ꜤAlī
State University,
to some Youngstown,
interpreters, OH
theAyyad
44555,
women, 2021,
mmir@ysu.edu
dazzled 27–30). As
their hands
banquet, hands
Muḥammad with the
ibn knives
them Aḥmad they are
knives,al-Qurṭubī holding
and presents(d. (Qurʾān
Joseph 1272) ibn12:31).al-Jawzī
before According
(Qurṭubīthem. Upon (d. 1200)
1967, to (Ibn
the
seeing him, the women cut Fakhr al-Dīn Abū ꜤAbdallāh
al-Jawzī
generally
9:179–180); 2002,
accepted 4:167);
such, by childhood
Joseph’s beauty, was utilized
thought that to they teach were
soMuḥammad the using pupils knives
byibn things
to
ꜤUmar cut which
some
al-Rāzī food
(d. theyitem,
1210) would
like fruit, only be able to ꜤAbdallāh
exegetical
ꜤAbdallāh
their hands view, ibnwiththey
ꜤUmar do so
the knivesbecause
al-Bayḍāwī theythey are
(d. were
Article
holding
1286)
Abstract: awestruck
(Qurʾān
(Bayḍāwī
Sūra 12 of 12:31).the1968, Joseph’s
Qurʾān, According
1:493); beauty
Joseph, Abū totells
thethat
Ḥayyān they
generally
the story didof(Rāzī
accepted
the 1938, 18:126–127);
not prophet Joseph. He is Abū bought as a sla
understand
know
but
what they
accidentally in1344)
were the
doing
cut their
years
and
hands.
to by
accidentally come; Others
cut ‘only leave
Muḥammad
their
the
children food
ibn item
are
Aḥmad out
capable and
al-Qurṭubīsimply
of learning say
(d.did that
1272) the
a text(Qurṭubī that 1967, they 9:179–180)a
exegetical
al-Gharnāṭī view,
(d. they do
(Abū Ḥayyān
so because they
1992, were so hands
6:267–269); awestruck while
ꜤImād bythinking
Joseph’s
al-Dīn that
beauty
IsmāꜤīl they that were
ibn cutting
they not
do
some not
know
Kathīr
women,
food understand
item,
what
(d. 1373)
awestruck
like
they (Ibn fruit.
were Kathīr
by
now
Amīn
doing
Joseph’s
1983, and
Aḥsan
and accidentally
4:23–24);
tempt
an Egyptian
beauty,
will Why Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut Thei
Iṣlāḥītounderstand
differs
cut
ꜤAbdallāh
cut their
Burhān
seduce
high
their
from al-Dīn
him,
official,
ibnhands.
this
hands and ꜤUmar
later’,
view.
Abūwhile
whose
But
Hethinking
l-Ḥasan
is ridiculed
wife—tradition
the
al-Bayḍāwī
opined
argues ibn
by
difference
thatthat Ibn
ꜤUmar
her (d.
they
peers
calls
between
1286)
theKhald women
werefor her
her
cutting
Zulaykhā—makes
(Bayḍāwī
ūn
the
failure(as 1968,
do so.1:493);
toquoted She
an unsuccessful
and Abū them
invites Ḥayyān to
two positions is only one of detail, both representing
al-Gharnāṭī (d. the same
1344) (Abū essential
Ḥayyān interpretation,
1992, 6:267–269); ꜤImād al-Dīn
wished to succeed where Zulaykhā had failed, and, unable to persuade
ꜤAlī Joseph in the beginning, the womenibn
IsmāꜤīl
translated
al-BiqāꜤī
they
some
namely,
threatened
Shawkānī
(d. 1480)
food
to(d.
by
thatBouzoubaa
item,
to1834)
(BiqāꜤī
like
the women’s
kill themselves
fruit.
(Shawkānī
2003, 4:34–35);
Amīn 1998,
Aḥsan
cutting
if Joseph
banquet, p. Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31
Muḥammad
Iṣlāḥī
of their
would
3. See
hands
Kathīr
differs
not
them
hands(d.
listen
also
ibn
from knives,
was
1373)
to them,
infra).
this
an
(Ibn
ibn
view.
and
Kathīr
and,
The memorization
Muḥammad
He
presents
involuntary
argues Joseph
act
1983, 4:23–24);
toholding
convince
al-onbefore
that
Joseph
the
their
women
them.
Burhān
that
part, ofUpona the Qur
al-Dīn Abū
seeing ān him,in
l-Ḥasan ibn ꜤUma
c
most 1996, 3:26); Abū l-Thanāʾ Maḥmūd al-Ᾱlūsī
wished succeed where Zulaykhā had
their failed,
hands and,
with theunableknives to persuade
they are Joseph in(d.
(Qurʾānthe beginning,12:31). According to the generally accept
childhood
they were
position was
accepted
serious13:229–230);
in to
made
carrying
byeven
out the threat,
more
classical urgent
they
and al-BiqāꜤī by
modern,
deliberately
the
(d. fact
Sunnī
1480)
cutso their
that
and
(BiqāꜤī
hands
in
ShīꜤī, medieval
2003,
with
mufassirūn
4:34–35);
knives.
times
This
(“Qurʾānic
Muḥammad the
ar- that
kuttāb learning
ibn ꜤAlī ibn Muḥammad al
1854)they (Ᾱlūsī,
threatened
exegetes”), such as the Rashīḍ
kill themselves
following: Riḍā
ifexegetical
Joseph (d.
would
view,1935) not
they (Rashīḍ
listen
do to Riḍā
them,
because n.d.,
and,
they to12:293);
convince
were so awestruckJoseph by Joseph’s beauty that they did n
was
ticle gives
Muḥammad
they
the were
only
details ofeducational
Iṣlāḥīʾs
Thanāʾullāh
serious in carrying interpretation
al-Maẓharī
stage
out the of thefor
Mustansir
threat,
many
Shawkānī
Qurʾānic
al-Pānīpatī
they
Mir verse
deliberately
individuals.
(d.(d. in1834)
1810) question
cut (Shawkānī
their and
(Thanāʾullāh
However,
hands discusses
with1996, al- how
knives.
Ibnthat
3:26); This
Khald
Abū ar-
ūn (ii,Maḥmūd
l-Thanāʾ p. 355)al-Ᾱlūsī (d
know what they were doing and accidentally cut their hands while thinking that they were cutti
insisted
interpretation ꜤAbdallāh
thatcalls Ibn
for ibn
al- ꜤAbbās
re-evaluating Arabı̄’s (d.
some 686–7).
approach
crucial (Ibn
1854)
aspects ꜤAbbās
would (Ᾱlūsī,
of the1987,certainly p. 196);
13:229–230);
Qurʾānic story Abū
be Rashīḍ
of l-Ḥajjāj
advisable
Joseph. Riḍā Mujāhid in
(d. case
1935) the(Rashīḍ pupil Riḍā was n.d., 12:293)
Pānīpatī
ticle gives 2007, details4:24); of AbūIṣlāḥīʾs Muḥammad
interpretation someꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq
of the
food item,Qurʾānic likeHaqqānī verseAmīn
fruit. in(d. 1911)
Aḥsan(Ḥaqqānī
question and
Iṣlāḥī discusses
differs how fromthat this view. He argues that the wom
ibn Jabr al-Qurashī (d. 722) (Mujāhid Muḥammad 2005, p,Thanāʾullāh 117). Abū l-Ḥasan
al-Maẓharī Muqātil ibn Youngstown,
al-Pānīpatī (d. 1810) (Thanāʾullāh al
primed
n.d., 4:262);
interpretation to continue
Muḥammad education
calls for re-evaluating al-Ṭāhir ibn and
someꜤᾹshūr not
crucial (d. to1973)
aspects quit (Ibn
of after
the ꜤᾹshūr the
wished to succeed where Zulaykhā had failed, and, unable to persuade Joseph in USA;
Qurʾānic kuttāb
Youngstown
1984,story 12:263);
of stage.
State
Joseph. University, OH 44555, mmir@y
the beginnin
Keywords: Sulaymān
Qurʾān; Qurʾānic (d. 767) exegesis; (Muqātil Iṣlāḥī; 2003,
Amīn 2:147);
Pānīpatī
Aḥsan Abū Joseph;
2007,
Iṣlāḥī; JaꜤfar Abū
4:24); Muḥammad
Zulaykhā; Muḥammad ibn ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq
Potiphar’s Jarīrwife; al- Haqqānī (d. 1911) (Ḥaqqān
Ashraf That ꜤAlī Thānawī
being (d. 1943)
said, the(Thānawītendency they threatened1935, ofAbū 5:78);
some to kill Muḥammad
parents
themselvesand ShafīꜤ
if Joseph (d. would
teachers 1976) not to attach
listen highest
to them, and, to impor-
convince Joseph th
Egyptian Article Ṭabarī
noblewomen (d. 923) (Ṭabarī 1909, Iṣlāḥī; 12:122); n.d., 4:262);l-Layth Muḥammad al-Samarqandī al-Ṭāhir
Abstract: (d.
Sūra 983)
ibn 12 ꜤᾹshūr
(Samar-
of the Qurʾān, (d. 1973) (Ibntells
Joseph, ꜤᾹshūr 1984,of12:263)
the story
(Muḥammad
Keywords:
tance to qandī ShafīꜤ 1990,
Qurʾān;
memorization Qurʾānic 5:50);
at the Abū
exegesis; they l-AꜤlā
were
expense Mawdūdī
Amīn
serious Aḥsan
of ꜤAlī in (d.
carrying
a minimum 1979)
Iṣlāḥī; out(Mawdūdī
Joseph; the Zulaykhā;
threat, 1949–
they Potiphar’s
deliberately wife; cut their hands with knives.the This proa
1993, 2:159–160); Abū Isḥāq Ashraf al-ThaꜤlabī Thānawī(d. 1035) (d. byrequirement
(Tha‘labī
1943) (Thānawī 2004, of
high3:372);
1935, understanding
5:78); Muḥammad was ShafīꜤcalls
(d. her
1976
Citation: Mir, Mustansir. 2021. Why 1972a,
Egyptian
stronglyMaḥmūd
1949–1972b,
noblewomen2:397);4 Muḥammad
criticized ibn by ꜤUmar Ibnal-Zamakhsharī
Khald
ticle gives details
ūn.
Ḥusayn
(MuḥammadHe
of Iṣlāḥīʾs
(d. attributed
1144)ShafīꜤ
interpretation
(Zamakhsharī the
1990, tempt
an(d.
poor
Egyptian
5:50);
of 1982)
n.d.,
the Qurʾānic
Abū Arabic
2:253.);
l-AꜤlā
official,
of
versewhose
Ibnthe
Mawdūdī
in question
people
wife—tradition
(d. 1979)
and discusses
by of the
(Mawdūdī
how th
1949
Z
Citation: Mir, Mustansir. 2021. Why (Ṭabāṭabāʾī 2002, 12:149). interpretation calls for re-evaluating some4tocrucial seduce him, and
aspects of the is ridiculed
Qurʾānic story her ofpeers
Joseph. for her fa
ꜤAṭiyya al-Andalusī (d. 1147) (Ibn1972a, ꜤAṭiyya 2007, 3:239);
1949–1972b, Abū
2:397); ꜤAlī al-Faḍl
Muḥammad ibnknives,al-Ḥusayn al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī (d. 1982
Aḥsan
Did the Egyptian Noblewomen CutIṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation
Their Hands? Amīn of Qurʾān 12:31
Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut Maghreb
Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31. 1.
This is not
The Problem
region
Ḥasanan exhaustive to
al-Ṭabarsī (d.
Stated
them being
list1153) of the urged
mufassirūn
(Ṭabarsī
to
2006,who
(Ṭabāṭabāʾī
memorize
5:307); subscribe
2002, Abū12:149).
the
l-Faraj
Qur
banquet,
to the
their ꜤAbd
ān,
hands
above-stated
hands
in
al-Raḥmān
withAḥsan
childhood,
them
the knives
and without
presents
ibn they are holding (Qurʾān 12:31).
even
Joseph before them
Their Hands? Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs being
standard taught
interpretation
ꜤAlī ibn
literacy.of verseHe
al-Jawzī (d. 311200)blamed
of sūra Keywords:
Article
(Ibn
parents
It isQurʾān;
12.al-Jawzī a fairly2002,
and Qurʾānicteachers
representative
4:167);
exegesis;
Fakhr
for list,
al-Dīn
considering
Iṣlāḥī; though,Amīn
Abū and the
ꜤAbdallāh
Iṣlāḥī; memorization
Joseph; Zulaykhā;of Potiphar’s wi
Religions 12: x. exegetical view, they do so because they wereto sotheawestruck
Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31. 1.In TheSūra Problem
12, which Stated tells the story of Joseph, This is
verses not an
23–29 exhaustiverelate how list theof the
wife mufassirūn
of the who subscribe above-b
n Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31
Religions 12: x.
should the
Egyptian
exegetical
Qur
suffice
Mustansir ān,
to
high
tradition
In
Citation:
showasMir
Mir,official
Sūra behind
12,
such
that
Muḥammad ibn ꜤUmar al-Rāzī
Mustansir. which
(regardless
the
Why Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut Their
called
it.
2021.
said
tells
Why ꜤAzīz the
Egyptian
interpretation of
(Potiphar
story
the
of
noblewomen
(d. 1210)
standard
children’s
has
Joseph,
practically
verses
ability
(Rāzī 1938, 18:126–127);
of interpretation 23–29
the whole
of verse
to
relate
read
31
knowtradition,
weight
what
how ofAbū
it)
sūra
the
of as
theyꜤAbdallāh
the adequate
12. will
were
we
wife Itdoing
is athe
of fairly
primary
representative
and accidentally
edu-
list, hands
cut their though w
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxxArticle
cation.
call her
This
Muḥammad
Zulaykhā—makes
‘erroneous’ ibn Aḥmad
an
practice
unsuccessful
wasattempt
al-Qurṭubī
should formerly
suffice (d. to1272)
to show endorsed
seduce
(Qurṭubī
that the
some
him,
by
said 1967,
food
whereupon
hisitem, traditionist
9:179–180);
interpretation like
some fruit. hasAmīn fellow-citizen,
practically
Aḥsan the
Iṣlāḥī whole
differs weight
from th
Academic Editor: Roberto Tottoli Egyptian
Did the Egyptian
7high
ꜤAbdallāh official
Noblewomen
ibn ꜤUmar called
Cut ꜤAzīz
al-Bayḍāwī (Potiphar (d. 1286)of the Bible)—following
(Bayḍāwī 1968, 1:493); tradition,
Abū Ḥayyānwe will
Mir
al-Qābisı̄.
women
3. Iṣlāḥī’s call in Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs
Interpretation
Their her Hands?
Why Did the Egyptian Noblewomen
al-GharnāṭīCutInterpretation
IfAmīn
Their Hands?of
children
theZulaykhā—makes
city, very Qurʾān 12:31
Aḥsanlikely
Amīn
(d.
Iṣlāḥīʾs
1344)
did her an
Youngstown
not
peers,
(Abū
know
exegetical
unsuccessfulridicule
Ḥayyān
State
reading University,
tradition
her,
1992,attempt saying and
6:267–269);to
Youngstown,
behind
that writing,
seduce “It it.ishim,
wished
ꜤImād
OH to
clear
44555,
the
al-Dīn
succeed
to us
whereupon
USA;
learning
IsmāꜤīl
mmir@ysu.edu
thatwhere she some
ibn
of the Qur
Zulaykhā had failed,ān by and, unable t
heart
has gone wouldastray”
Interpretation
women
The Pakistani in theofnot
(innā
Qurʾān
city,
Qurʾānic lead 12:31.
very them
la-narāhā
exegete,likely fī to
her
Amīn ḍalālin
1. advancing
The
peers,
Aḥsan mubīnin
Problem
ridicule
Iṣlāḥī properly
[verse
Stated
her, 30]).
saying in that they threatened
linguistic
1 A series
“It isof events
clear skills.
to tofollow
us killThis,
that themselves
she as Ibnif Joseph
Khald wouldūn not listen t
Kathīr (d. 1373) (Ibn Kathīr 1983,
Abstract: 3. 4:23–24);
Sūra
Iṣlāḥī’s of(d. the1418/1997),
Burhān
12Interpretation Qurʾān, al-Dīn Joseph, in
Abū
they
histells
were
multivolume
l-Ḥasan
the story
serious ibnof inꜤUmar
the prophet
carrying out Joseph.
the He is
threat, bought
they as a slav
deliberately
(verses 30–34)
Religions 12:2x.: fīanḍalālin
Youngstown
Accepted: 27 July 2021 State
University,
Urdu Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31
Youngstown,
believed,
has gone
Qurʾānic OH 44555,
wasastray”USA;
commentary,
al-BiqāꜤī because
mmir@ysu.edu
(d.(innā the
1480)la-narāhā
Tadabbur-i
(BiqāꜤī language
by Mustansir
2003, In
Qurʾān Sūra
4:34–35);
Egyptian ofmubīnin
The
the
Mir12,
(“Reflection Qur
which
Muḥammad
high
Pakistani
[verse
official, ān
tells
on
Qurʾānic
isibn
30]).
whose soꜤAlī
the 1 Asuperlative
storyseries
ibnofMuḥammad
Qurʾān”),
wife—tradition
ticle
exegete,gives
of
details
Amīnof
events
Joseph,differs that
calls
of
Aḥsan
her
Iṣlāḥīʾs
it Zulaykhā—makes
follow
verses al- is23–29
not comparable
interpretation
relate how
Iṣlāḥī (d. 1418/1997), of an
the
the wife of th
unsuccessful
Qurʾānic
in his multivo versa
Published: 9 August 2021
Accepted: 27 July 2021 from—orto any (verses
Zulaykhā
rather, 30–34)
ofShawkānī
the
2:
arranges
rejects—the
people’s (d.a1834) banquet,
aforestated
discourses,
(Shawkānī to
tempt which
Egyptian
interpretation
and
to1996, she
seducehigh invites
sohim,
3:26); official
and those
memorizing
Abū
and called
presents women;
l-Thanāʾ
is ridiculedꜤAzīz
his own
it (Potiphar
would
Maḥmūd
by understand-
her peers notforfor
al-Ᾱlūsī the
helpher Bible)—following
(d. learners
failure to do advance
so. She tradition,
invites themwe to w
Abstract: Sūra 12 of the Qurʾān, Joseph, she tells
hands the story
each of the prophet
guest13:229–230);
a aknife; Joseph. He
Urdu is bought
Qurʾānic as a slave
commentary, interpretation
Tadabbur-i calls Qurʾān re-evaluating
(“Reflection some on crucial
the aspects
Qurʾān”), of thd
Published: 9 August 2021 ing of the verse
Zulaykhā (Iṣlāḥī
1854) 2001–2002,
arranges
(Ᾱlūsī, 4:208–210).
banquet, callRashīḍ
banquet, her
Here,
toinstance,
which Zulaykhā—makes
hands following,
Riḍā she them invites
(d. is his
1935)
knives, those anwomen;
argument
(Rashīḍ
and unsuccessful
presents Riḍā step
Joseph by step:
n.d., attempt
12:293);
before them. to seduce
Upon seeing him, whereupon
him, the
USA;women som cu
by an Egyptian
Publisher’s Note: MDPI high Mustansir
official,
stays in
Mir linguistic
Academic
neu- whose wife—tradition
Joseph is
Editor:skills
presented
Roberto
calls her through,
Tottoli
Zulaykhā—makes
before the
for
women; from—or an rather,
unsuccessful coming rejects—the
at- up with
Youngstown
aforestated comparable
State University,
interpretation linguistic
Youngstown,
and styles
OH 44555,
presents his or own
mmir@ys
unders
1. In verseshe 30, hands
Muḥammad
the women, each guest Thanāʾullāh a knife;
criticizing women
their al-Maẓharī
Zulaykhā,
hands in with
thesay: city,
al-Pānīpatī
theinnā veryla-narāha
knives likely
they (d.are her
fī 1810) peers,
ḍalālin
holding ridicule
(Thanāʾullāh
mubīnin
(Qurʾān “It her,al-
12:31). saying
According that “It to is clear
the to usaccepte
generally that sh
traltempt
with to seduce
regard him, and
to jurisdictional is textual
ridiculed the by fabric
her
women peers (Ibn
isare
for Khald
her
stunned failure by ūn,to do
Joseph’sii,
has pp.
ing
so.gone She 354,
of the
beauty, invites
astray” 167–68.
verse them
cut their (Iṣlāḥī
to See
a
hands, also
2001–2002, Keywords:
and Baer4:208–210).
fī ḍalālin
exclaim 2001,
Qurʾān;
that p. 86,
Qurʾānic
Here, n. 35).
exegesis;
following, Iṣlāḥī;
isseries Amīn
his argument Aḥsanstep Iṣlāḥ
by
they(innā do sola-narāhā mubīnin the[verse by 30]).
1 A
claims
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-
in published maps and institu- is clear Joseph
Received:toPānīpatī
us
24 Maythat presented
2007,
2021 she 4:24);
has before
gone Abū the
astray!”
exegetical women;
Muḥammad This
view, ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq
statement, says
becauseHaqqānīAbstract:
Iṣlāḥī, they
Egyptian (d.
combines
were 1911)
Sūra
noblewomen (Ḥaqqānī
so12awestruck
ofthe Qurʾān, Joseph,
Joseph’s tells
beauty theof thatevents
story of the
they follo
did pro
no
banquet,
tral withhands regardthem knives, and presents
to jurisdictional Joseph Joseph
is not before
a Youngstown
mortal them.human Upon
State but seeing
University,
(versesan
1. him,
angel;In
30–34) the2:women
Youngstown,
verse 30, OH the cut
44555,
women, USA; mmir@ysu.edu
criticizing Zulaykhā, say: innā la-narāha fī ḍalālin mubīn
tional affiliations. elements the
Accepted: women
n.d.,27 4:262);
July 2021 are
of malāma, shamāta, andknow stunned
Muḥammad by Ꜥāʾ,
Joseph’s
al-Ṭāhir
iddi what5 ibn
that they ꜤᾹshūr
beauty,
is,were cut
of reproach,(d. their
1973)
doing andmalicious hands,
(Ibn
by an
accidentallyꜤᾹshūr
and exclaim
1984,
pleasure
Egyptian cut theiror
high that
12:263);
official,
hands while whose wife—tradition
thinking calls
that they were cuttin her Zu
their
claimshands Religions
with the
in published 2021, 12,
mapsknives x FORthey
and institu- PEER
are REVIEW
3.schadenfreude,
The holding
Zulaykhā, Position
Joseph
Published: Ashraf
(Qurʾān
feeling
isand
9 August ꜤAlī
not of12:31).
2021
Reasoning
vindicated
aThānawī
mortal
boastful
According
(d.before
human
claim, 1943)
some
and
to
Citation:
but
the
theanReflection
(Thānawī
Zulaykhā
respectively:
food
generally
Mir,
iswomen,Mustansir.
cleararranges
angel;
item, toaccepted
1935,
reproach,
like
2021.
says
fruit.
in
us5:78); Why
that
that Post-Kutt
aAmīn
in Joseph
she
Muḥammad
banquet,
that tempt
Aḥsan it iswill
has togoneāb
which
quite
to
Education
eitherastray!”
ShafīꜤ
seduce
Iṣlāḥī she
strange,
differs
do
(d.invites
him, from Thisthis
1976)
and
2
statement,
isthose
of
ridiculed
view.
8
women; says
Hebyargues Iṣlāḥī,
her peers that for combin
the her
wome fai
exegetical view, they do so because her
tional affiliations. theywish wereor
Zulaykhā,
(Muḥammad
sobe Abstract:
awestruck
imprisoned
feeling
Sūra
by
vindicated
ShafīꜤ
12 ofhumiliated;
Joseph’s
and
1990,
the
Did
before
5:50);
Qurʾān,
the
beauty
she
Egyptian
Abū
thatJoseph,
elements
the
hands
Noblewomen
theyof
women,
l-AꜤlā each
tells
did
Mawdūdī
the
says
guest
Cut story of the prophet Joseph.
not
malāma, that shamāta,
(d.
a knife; Joseph
1979) andwill
(Mawdūdī iddi
either Ꜥ āʾ, 5 that
do
1949–
He is,is bought
of as a slave
reproach, malicious pleasu
know what they were doing and accidentally
in their In medieval
view,
cut
that the
their by Islam,
an stays
hands
wife of
Egyptian learning
a wished
high-ranking
Their
high official,
tocultures
Hands? succeed
Amīn
whose
officialwhere
Aḥsan were should institutionalized
Zulaykhā
Iṣlāḥīʾs
wife—tradition
fall in love
banquet,
had
calls herclaim,
hands
failed, withand,
Zulaykhā—makes
them in
herunable the
knives, tointerpretation
and presents
persuade
anreproach,
unsuccessful
Joseph Josephinofthebefore
beginnin
at- it is quite str
them
Joseph
slave—and her1972a,
Publisher’s prays
wish Note:
stranger to
or MDPIGod
be
1949–1972b, forwhile
imprisoned
still, protection
neu-
that
thinking
2:397);
she and
should
thatschadenfreude,
4against
humiliated;
Muḥammad
Joseph
they
fail the
isto
werewomen’s
presented
cutting
Ḥusayn andmachinations,
doboastful
before al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī
the women; and God
respectively:
(d. 1982) in that
Islamic religion, with the they
mujtahid threatened
Interpretation being
of tomake
Qurʾān killqualified
12:31. him
themselves her
their
if1.
to wish;
Joseph
The hands
derive malicious
would
Problem with the
not
original knivesto
listen
Stated they
them,
legal are and,holding
rulings. (Qurʾān
to convince 12:31).thA
Inin Joseph
some food item, like fruit. Amīn Aḥsan
grants Iṣlāḥī
2.
tral Joseph his differs
prayer.
Traditional tempt from tothis
Muslim seduce view. him, He
Interpretationand
argues isinridiculed
that
their
of the view,
Qurʾān by her
women that
12:31 peers the forwife her offailure
a to do
high-ranking so. She invites
official them
should to afall love wit
with
pleasure, (Ṭabāṭabāʾī prays
regard
in that she, like to to God
jurisdictional
2002,them for
12:149). protection
a noblewoman,
they were
Religions against
the12:women x. should
serious the
inare women’s
stunned
suffer
carrying machinations,
defeat
out by
the Joseph’s
at the they
exegetical
threat, hands
view, and
beauty, God
of ado
they
deliberately cutsotheir because
cut hands,
their they
hands and
were
withexclaim
soknives. that
awestruckThis ab
wished ©to2021
Copyright: succeed
by thewhereauthors.Zulaykhā‘secular’
slave
had
This
claims inareas
failed,
Qurʾānic
grants
and, published
as a his
Theresult,
of
banquet,
and,passageunable
maps
prayer. knowledge,
generally
hands
to
and institu-
incur
persuade
(verses
accepted
disgrace;
them as
Joseph
30–34)—indeed,
answer
and
the
knives,
Joseph
boastful
scholar
inand
slave—and thepresents
to
is the
not
beginning,
the
claim, a
advanced
whole
question
mortalin
Joseph
stranger of
that, the
just
human
before
still,
had
know posedin
sūra—raises,
that
but
theywhat
age
them.
In Sūra
anshe
is
been
and
Upon
that 12,
should
angel;
they in be-
the
her
were
learning
seeing
which failhim,
women
doing
tells
toand competences,
the
the
make
were
women
story
him of
accidentally
cutJoseph,
do hertheir
cut wish;verses
hands malw
This is notnot anhands exhaustive ticlelist gives of details
the of Iṣlāḥīʾs who
mufassirūn
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx interpretation
subscribe of thetohigh Qurʾānic
the above-statedverse in question and discusses how th
they
Submitted threatened
for possibleto killthe
open themselves ifsides
authors. priority
access Joseph the
waswould
This issues
Qurʾānic
their
expected oflisten toto
interpretation
passage
with
them, be the
and, knives
of
shifted to
the they
convince
incident
from
pleasure, areJoseph holding
of
rote the
inthe that
that (Qurʾān
women’s
learningshe, like 12:31).
Egyptian
cutting
to
them aAccording
analytical of their
noblewoman, official to the
thinking. generally
called
should ꜤAzīzThoseaccepted
suffer (Potiphar
who
defeat atofthe
thehand Bib
“stunned by his of(verses
[Joseph’s] 30–34)—indeed,
beauty.” According to wholesome of the
interpreters, sūra—raises, the women,be- dazzled
Copyright: © 2021 by Zulaykhā,
they
publication were serious
under the terms in carrying
and con- out the standard
threat, they interpretation
exegetical
deliberately view,
cut verse
their
interpretation
they 31
handsdo ofso sūra
with because 12.feeling
calls
knives. Itfor
they is
This
vindicated
re-evaluating
awere
fairly
ar- so
some some
representative
awestruck
call
before
food
her
crucial
by
the
item, women,
Joseph’s
Zulaykhā—makes
like
aspects
list, fruit.
though,beauty
says
of the Amīn
and that
Qurʾānic
that anthey
Joseph
Aḥsan story
did
unsuccessful
will
Iṣlāḥī
of either
differs
Joseph.
nothad attempt
fromdo th
to
Submitted for possible open access
were hands, sides aJoseph’s
particularly
by number
the issues of general
of
gifted
beauty, interpretation
would
thought andAcademic specific
be
thatherof slave
the issues.
expected
they
wish
Editor: wereand,
incident
or
Roberto
3
be But
asto
using aour
of result,
the
make
imprisoned
Tottoli knivesparticular
incur
women’s original
to
and cut point
disgrace;
cutting
some
humiliated; of of in-their
and
contributions.
food boastful
item, like claim,
Rote
fruit, in that,
learning they been
ditions ofgives
the Creative Commons At- interpretation should suffice to show that the said interpretation has practically wishedthe to whole
succeedweight where of Zulaykhā
the had failed, and, unable to
ticle
publication details
under the ofterms
Iṣlāḥīʾs
and con- terest, of to thewhichQurʾānicknow
we whatconfine
verse
will they
in were
question our doing
and and accidentally
discusses
discussion, is,how Why that cut their
did the womenhands while
women in cutthe city,
thinking
their very that likely
they her werepeers, cutting ridicule her, say
washands not hands,
but
exegetical supersededatradition
number behind
accidentally of
cut general
their
altogether andJoseph
hands.
Keywords:
it.like specific
but Others prays issues.
relegated
Qurʾān; leave to God
Qurʾānic
3 But
the tofood our
for an
exegesis; particular
item
protection
effete,
they out against
Iṣlāḥī;
threatened andpoint
rather
Amīn simply
to of
Aḥsanthe in-
than
kill say central,
women’s
Iṣlāḥī;
themselves that the
Joseph;machinations,
position
Zulaykhā;
if Joseph would and
not God
Potiphar’slisten wifto
interpretation calls(http://crea-
ditions of the Creative for re-evaluating
Commons At- some crucial
terest, withtothe
women,
some
aspects
which knives
awestruck
food
of
we the
that
will item,
Qurʾānic
byZulaykhā
confine
Joseph’s
fruit.
storyour hadofAmīnJoseph.
provided
discussion,
beauty,
Aḥsan them?
cut their
Iṣlāḥī
is, Why differs
hands. did has from
the
But gone
women this
the serious astray”
view. He
cutintheir
difference (innā argues
between la-narāhā
that the ḍalālin mubīnin [vers
fī women
Received:
Egyptian grants 24 Mayhis2021
noblewomen prayer. they were carrying out the the threat, they deliberately c
tribution (CC BY) license (http://crea- in the educational practice.
to succeed This shift, however,
had failed, was not made :by interpretation,
all medieval Muslim
wished where Zulaykhā and,(verses unable 30–34)
to persuade 2 Joseph in the beginning,
hands
Copyright:
3.Iṣlāḥī;two
Iṣlāḥī’s
Citation:
©with2021 the
Mir,positions
by the
Interpretation
Mustansir.
knives
isauthors.
2021. only that Zulaykhā
Why one of detail,
Accepted:
This27Qurʾānichad
July
both provided
2021 representing
passage them? (versesthe
ticlesame gives essential
30–34)—indeed,
details of Iṣlāḥīʾs the wholeinterpretationof the sūra—raises,
of the Qurʾānic be-
verse
Keywords: Qurʾān; Qurʾānic exegesis;
tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). learners, Did thenamely,
Submitted of
Amīn
for
Egyptian
whom Aḥsan
they open
that the women’s
possible
Noblewomen
quite
Iṣlāḥī;
threatened
access
Cut
a
Joseph; wide
to Zulaykhā;
kill
Published:
cutting spectrum
themselves
sides 9
of
Potiphar’s
August
the their
if2021
issues
Josephcontinued
hands
wife;
of
would notfor
was an
interpretation
listen
involuntary
interpretation
the
Zulaykhā
of the rest
to them,
actfor
incident
calls
of
and,
arranges their
to convince
onre-evaluating
their
of athe academic
banquet,
part,women’s
Joseph
asome which
to livesaspects
that
cutting
crucial she
of invites
their of the
Egyptian noblewomen The Pakistani they Qurʾānic
were serious exegete,
in carrying Amīn outAḥsan the threat, Iṣlāḥī they (d.deliberately
1418/1997),cut in histheir multivolume
hands with knives. This ar-
to lay Theirutmostposition
publication
Hands?
underemphasis
Amīnaccepted
the terms
and by con- on most memorization.
classical
hands,and aQurʾān modern,
number They of Sunnī were
general and and she
criticized
ShīꜤī, hands
specific by
mufassirūn each Ibnguest
issues. But aour
Khald
3(“Qurʾānic knife;
ūn for
particular being point of in-
Urdu Qurʾānic ticle commentary,
gives details Tadabbur-i
ofPublisher’s
Note: MDPI stays (“Reflection
of the neu- Qurʾānic Joseph on the
verse inis Qurʾān”),
question differs
and before
discusses how that
Mustansir. 2021. Why ditionsexegetes”),
‘superfluously
Interpretation
of the Creative
of Qurʾān
Commons
such
engrossed At-
12:31. as the following: in1. Theterest,
memorization’,
Problem to which Stated we and will confine
thus Keywords: wouldourhis discussion,
Qurʾān;neverpresented
Qurʾānic is, Why
be able did
exegesis; tothethe women;
women
cultivate
Iṣlāḥī; Amīncut their
Aḥsan Iṣlāḥ
an Noblewomen Cut from—or rather, rejects—the
interpretation
(http://crea- calls aforestated
for
tral re-evaluating
with regard interpretation
tosome crucial
jurisdictional and presents
aspects of the own
Qurʾānic understand-
story of Joseph.
Religions 12: x.ꜤAbdallāh ibn ꜤAbbās (d. 686–7). hands with
(Ibn the
ꜤAbbās knives 1987, that p. Zulaykhā
Egyptian
196); the Abū women had
noblewomenl-Ḥajjāj are
provided stunned
Mujāhid them? by Joseph’s beauty, cut th
Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs Religions 2021, 12, x. what
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx ing he of called
the verse
tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).malaka
(Iṣlāḥī ilmiyya,
2001–2002, In ‘intellectual
Sūra
4:208–210).
claims in published 12, which
Here,
maps and aptitude’.
tells
following,
institu- the story For of
is his Ibn
argument
Joseph
Joseph, Khald
is not
verses
step ūn
by
a mortal
step:(ii,
23–29 p.
relate 166), how this
the wife of th
ibn Jabr al-Qurashī (d.
Egyptian 722)
Citation: (Mujāhid
Mir, highMustansir.official 2005,
2021. called
Why p, 117). ꜤAzīz Abū l-Ḥasan
(Potiphar of Muqātil
the ibnhuman
Bible)—following
but an angel;
tradition, we wi
of Qurʾān 12:31. 1. Religions
The Problem 2021, 12, Stated form1.of In
x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx knowledge Keywords: is more
Qurʾān; superior
tional
Qurʾānic
verse 30, the women, criticizing Zulaykhā, say: innā la-narāha affiliations. than
exegesis; just
Iṣlāḥī; awareness
Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī; fī ḍalālin
and
Zulaykhā, Joseph;understanding;
Zulaykhā;
mubīnin
feeling “It
vindicated Potiphar’s it is
wife;only
before the women, sa
Sulaymān Egyptian
(d. 767) (Muqātil Did the
call herEgyptian 2003,Noblewomen
Zulaykhā—makes 2:147); Abū Cut JaꜤfar an unsuccessfulMuḥammad ibn Jarīr
attempt to al- seduce him, whereupon som
In Sūra 12, which tells attainable the storyAcademic is Editor:
of clear
by
Joseph, to
proficient
Roberto verses thatnoblewomen
usTottoli she
23–29 scholars has
relate gone how astray!”
through the wife This
debate of statement,
the and says
argumentation
her Iṣlāḥī,
wish or combines
be and
imprisoned the
not a listen-and-
and humiliated;
Ṭabarī (d. 923) (Ṭabarī 1909, 12:122);
Their
women Hands? Amīn Abū
Aḥsan l-Layth
Iṣlāḥīʾs al-Samarqandī (d. 983) (Samar-
10.3390/xxxxx
Egyptian high official called ꜤAzīz 2021. elements
(Potiphar of of the malāma, shamāta,
Bible)—following andin theꜤāʾ,
iddi
tradition,
city, 5 that very
we is,likely
of reproach,her peers, ridicule
malicious
Joseph prays
her,
pleasure
to God
saying that “It is clear to us that sh
or protection
for against the wom
12:31.will
Citation: Mir, Mustansir. Why
comply approach. qandī 1993, Speaking2:159–160); of
has gone such
Abū
Interpretation Isḥāq‘passive’
of
astray” Qurʾān al-ThaꜤlabī learners,
(innā la-narāhā (d. 1.
1035) The i.e.,
fī in those
Problem
(Tha‘labī
ḍalālin mubīnin continuing
Stated
2004, 3:372);
[verse to prioritize
30]). A series of events follow
1
call her Zulaykhā—makes Did the Egyptian an Noblewomen
Received:
unsuccessful schadenfreude,
Cut
24 May attempt
2021 andseduce
to boastful him, claim, whereuponrespectively: some reproach, that it
grants is quite
his prayer. strange,
or: Roberto Tottoli memorization Maḥmūd for the ibnrest ꜤUmar ofwife Religions
their
al-Zamakhsharī
(verses
12:
30–34)
x.
lives, 2:Ibn (d.Khald1144) ūn observed:
(Zamakhsharī In Sūra n.d.,
12,love 2:253.);tells
which Ibnthe story of Joseph, verses 2
Their Hands? Amīn Aḥsan in27
Iṣlāḥīʾs
Religions
Accepted: their
2021,
July 12,
2021view,
x.her, that thethat
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx ofis aclear high-ranking official should This fall in
Qurʾānic with her
passage www.mdpi.com/journal/religio
women in the city, very likely her peers, ridicule saying “It1147) toꜤAṭiyya
us al-(verses 30–34)—indeed, the w
Copyright: © 2021
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx bythat she
the authors.
ꜤAṭiyya
9 August1.
al-Andalusī (d. (Ibn 2007, 3:239); Egyptian Abū ꜤAlī
high al-Faḍl
official ibn
called ꜤAzīz (Potiphar of the Bibl
Interpretation of Qurʾān
has gone astray” (innā la-narāhā fī They 12:31.slave—and
ḍalālinwould
Published:
mubīnin 2021The stranger
[verse
still Problem
be still,
30]).
reluctant
1 Stated
A that Zulaykhā
series
Submitted sheto of
forshould
events
speak arranges
possible fail
follow
or
open to
arguea
access banquet,
make afterhim to do which
sides
spending her the she
wish;
issues invites
mostmalicious
of those
interpretation
of their women; lives of the incident of
ay 2021
Religions 12: x. Ḥasan al-Ṭabarsī (d. 1153) (Ṭabarsī 2006, 5:307); Abūcall l-Faraj her ꜤAbd al-Raḥmān ibnan unsuccessful
Zulaykhā—makes attempt3 to
(verses 30–34) 2: pleasure, in that
In she,
Sūra like
12, them
which
Academicsheatells
publication hands
noblewoman,
under
Editor: the each
the
Roberto terms
story guest
andshould
of
Tottoli con-a knife;
Joseph, suffer verses defeat
hands, 23–29 at
a the
number
relate hands of
how of a
general
the wife and ofspecific
the issues. Bu
ly 2021
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx attending
Publisher’s ꜤAlī
Note: academic
ibn
MDPI al-Jawzī
stays sessions.
(d.
neu- incurditions1200) (Ibn
Joseph
They al-Jawzī
is
care
presented
much
2002,
Commonsbefore
4:167); about Fakhr
women
the
memorization
women;
al-Dīn
in thethey Abū
city,been ꜤAbdallāh and
veryinlikely thus end
her peers, ridicule her, say
ugust 2021 Zulaykhā arranges a banquet, towith
slave
which
and,
shetoshort
Muḥammad
as
Egyptian
invites
a result, high
those
ibnthe ꜤUmar official
women;
disgrace;
al-Rāzī called (d.
and
of the Creative
ꜤAzīz boastful(Potiphar
1210)knowledge.(Rāzī 1938,has
claim,
At-
of inthe that,
terest,
18:126–127);
had to
Bible)—following which
Abūof we
ꜤAbdallāh
her
will
tradition,confine we ourwill discussion, is, W
up
tral falling
regard of
jurisdictional skill the
tributionto24 process
women
(CC BY)2021licenseare(http://crea-
stunned by When
gone astray”
Joseph’s one
beauty, (innā
cutthem la-narāhā
their claims
hands, fī ḍalālin
he
and mubīninthat
exclaim [verse
she hands each guest a knife; Muḥammad call her Zulaykhā—makes
ibn Aḥmad
Received: May
al-Qurṭubī an unsuccessful
(d. 1272) attempt
(Qurṭubī hands to with
seduce
1967, the him, knives
9:179–180); that
whereupon Zulaykhā some had provided
Academic Editor: Roberto claims Tottoli
studied in published maps and institu-
a certain (verses 30–34) 2 :incompetent in that
inbranch of knowledge, he ridiculeishumanusually butfound
Joseph
Accepted: 27 July is 2021
not apeers,
mortal an angel;
ote: MDPI stays neu- Joseph is presented before the women;
tional affiliations.ꜤAbdallāh women ibn the city,
ꜤUmar very
al-Bayḍāwī likely her1286)
(d. (Bayḍāwī her, 1968,saying 1:493);that Abū “ItḤayyān
is clear to us that she
ard to jurisdictional field once he
has is
gone put in
astray” a position
(innāZulaykhā,
Published: 9 Augustfeeling
la-narāhā to 2021
argue,
fī ḍalālin vindicated
debate mubīnin or before
Zulaykhā
teach
[verse the [.
30]). women,
arranges
. 1. A]. says
Otherwise,
series a of that
banquet,
events Josephto
their
follow will either
which she invitesdo t
the women are stunned
Received: 24 Mayby 2021Joseph’s al-Gharnāṭī (d. 1344) (Abū Ḥayyān 1992, 6:267–269); ꜤImād al-Dīn IsmāꜤīl ibn
beauty, cut their hands, and exclaim that
hed maps and institu- (verses 30–34) 2: her wish or be imprisoned and she humiliated;
hands each guest a knife;
Joseph is notAccepted: a mortal human
27 July 2021 but an angel; Kathīr (d. 1373) (Ibn Kathīr Publisher’s 1983, Note: 4:23–24);
MDPI Burhān al-Dīn Abū l-Ḥasan ibn ꜤUmar
ns. Joseph prays tostays
Godneu- for protection Joseph against is presented the women’s beforemachinations,
the women; and God
Zulaykhā, feeling vindicated
Published: 9 August 2021 before the women,
al-BiqāꜤī (d. says
Zulaykhā
1480) that (BiqāꜤīJoseph
arranges
tral 2003,
will
with aregard
either
banquet,
4:34–35); doto which she ibn
Muḥammad
to jurisdictional invites ꜤAlī those ibn Muḥammad women; al-
grants his prayer. the women are stunned by Joseph’s beauty, cut th
her wish or be imprisoned and humiliated; Shawkānīshe (d.hands1834) each (Shawkānī
claims guest
Religions
a1996,
in published
2021,
knife;
12,maps x.3:26); Abū l-Thanāʾ Maḥmūd al-Ᾱlūsī (d.
and institu-
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. This Qurʾānic passage (verses 30–34)—indeed,
Joseph is not a mortal the whole human of the but sūra—raises,
an angel; be-
Joseph praysPublisher’s to God for Note: MDPI stays against
protection neu- the women’s Joseph is machinations,
presented before andRiḍā theGod women;
Submitted for1854) possible(Ᾱlūsī, open access 13:229–230); Rashīḍ
sides the issues of interpretation
(d. 1935) (Rashīḍ Riḍā n.d., 12:293);
of the incident
Zulaykhā, feelingofvindicated the women’s before cutting of their say
the women,
grants his prayer. publication under Muḥammad the women
the terms and con- Thanāʾullāh are stunned al-Maẓharī by Joseph’s al-Pānīpatī beauty, (d.cut 1810) their(Thanāʾullāh
hands, and 3 Butal-
exclaim that
claims in published maps and institu- hands, a number of general and her specific
wish or issues.
be imprisoned our particular
and humiliated; point of in-
The generally accepted answer to the question just
“stunned by his [Joseph’s] beauty.” According to some i
by Joseph’s beauty, thought that they were using knives
but accidentally cut their hands. Others leave the food i
Religions 2022, 13, 179 women, awestruck by Joseph’s beauty,7cut their hands.
of 19
two positions is only one of detail, both representing th
Religions 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW namely, that the women’s cutting of their2 hands
of 8 was an
position accepted by most classical and modern, Sunnī
memorization is better than that of others due toexegetes”),
their highsuch as the following:
proficiency in it, and
their belief that it is the purpose
2. Traditional Muslim of intellectual
Interpretation ꜤAbdallāh
of aptitude
Qurʾān ibn ꜤAbbās
(malaka
12:31 (d. 686–7).
ilmiyya), is ꜤAbbās 1987, p
but it (Ibn
ibn Jabr al-Qurashī (d. 722) (Mujāhid 2005, p, 117
surely not. (Ibn Khald ūn, ii, pp.
The generally 167–68)
accepted answer to the question just posed is that the women were
Sulaymān (d. 767) (Muqātil 2003, 2:147); Abū JaꜤfa
An old axiombycited by al-Jāhiz (d. 255/868) Ṭabarī
acclaims logical
(d. 923) reasoning
(Ṭabarī 1909, (especially
12:122); Abū l-Layth al-S
Joseph’s beauty,. thought
˙ that they were using knives to cut some food item, like fruit,
when practiced in but
a group) as being conducive to the qandī 1993, 2:159–160); Abū Isḥāq al-ThaꜤlabī (d. 1
accidentally cut their hands. Others leave‘pollination’
the food
2 of item
of learners’
8 ibn out and simplyminds,
say that in
the
Religions 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Maḥmūd ꜤUmar al-Zamakhsharī (d. 1144) (Zam
contrast to the atrophying impact of
women, awestruck bymemorization:
Joseph’s beauty, cut their hands. But the difference between the
ꜤAṭiyya al-Andalusī (d. 1147) (Ibn ꜤAṭiyya 2007, 3:2
two positions is only one of detail, both representing the same essential interpretation,
Wise people, those Ḥasan al-Ṭabarsī (d. 1153) (Ṭabarsī 2006, 5:307); Abū
namely,ofthat
reasoning
the women’s andcutting
analysis,
of theirdisapprove
hands was an perfect memorization
involuntary act on their part, a
2. Traditional Muslim Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31 ꜤAlī ibn al-Jawzī (d. 1200) (Ibn al-Jawzī 2002, 4:167); F
Religions 2021, 12, xas
FORitPEER
is usually heavily
REVIEWposition reliedbyon
accepted most byclassical
learners andand because
modern, Sunnī it leads
and ShīꜤī,to depriving
mufassirūn (“Qurʾānic
2 of 8
The generally Muḥammad ibn ꜤUmar al-Rāzī (d. 1210) (Rāzī 1938,
the accepted
mind ofanswer to the such
exegetes”),
developing question
as thejust
a sensus posed is that
following:
communis. It the women
is even were‘memorization
said:
Muḥammad leads
ibn Aḥmad al-Qurṭubī (d. 1272) (
to eradication of ꜤAbdallāh
the mind ibn( ꜤAbbās (d. 686–7). (Ibn
adhq al-dhihn)’,
by Joseph’s beauty, thought that they were using knives to cut some food item,ꜤAbdallāh
ꜤAbbās 1987,
because he whop. 196); Abū l-Ḥajjāj
normally Mujāhid
counts
like fruit, ibn ꜤUmar al-Bayḍāwī (d. 1286) (Bayḍāw
ibn JabrMuslim
al-Qurashī (d. 722) (Mujāhid 2005, p, 117). Abū l-Ḥasan
but accidentallyon
2.
cutmemorization
Traditional
their hands. Otherscannot
leave thebefood Interpretation
butiteman out of Qurʾān
impressionistic
and simply say that
12:31
al-Gharnāṭī
individual.
the (d. [Methodical]ibn1992, 6:267–269
1344) Muqātil
(Abū Ḥayyān
Sulaymān (d.accepted
767) (Muqātil 2003, 2:147); Abūjust
Kathīr JaꜤfar
(d. Muḥammad
1373) (Ibn theibn
Kathīr Jarīr4:23–24);
1983, al-
women, awestruck reasoning,
by Joseph’s The
on beauty, generally
theṬabarī
other (d.hand,
cut their would
hands.
923) (Ṭabarī
answer
guide
But the
1909,
to the
one
difference
12:122);
question
Abūto the sphere
between
l-Layth
theposed is that
of certitude
al-Samarqandī
women
(d.women, andwere Burhān al
983) (Samar-
two positions isthe only “stunned
one of detail, by his [Joseph’s] beauty.” According to al-BiqāꜤī
some (d. 1480)
interpreters, (BiqāꜤī
the 2003, 4:34–35);
dazzled Muḥammad
prosperityby
of both
Joseph’s
representing
trustfulness
qandībeauty, [. . .the
1993, 2:159–160);
thought
same essential
]. that
(al-Jāh
Abū
they
izwere
.Isḥāq
interpretation,
, p.al-ThaꜤlabī
29.
using
See also El
(d.to1035)
Shawkānī
knives (d.
cut
Bagir 1953,
(Tha‘labī
1834)
some food
p. like
2004,
(Shawkānī
item,
175;
3:372);
1996, 3:26);
fruit, Abū l-T
namely, that the women’s cutting of their hands was an involuntary
Günther 2006, ꜤUmar ˙ act on their part, a
but p. 372;
Maḥmūd 2016,
accidentally ibnp.
cut 75)hands.
their al-Zamakhsharī
Others leave(d.
position accepted by most classical and modern, Sunnī and ShīꜤī, mufassirūn (“Qurʾānic the1144)
food(Zamakhsharī
1854) (Ᾱlūsī,
item out13:229–230);n.d., 2:253.);
and simply Rashīḍ
say thatIbn
Riḍā
the (d. 1935)
exegetes”), suchThis as the following: women,ꜤAṭiyya awestruck al-Andalusīby Joseph’s (d. 1147) beauty, (Ibncut ꜤAṭiyya 2007,
hands.3:239);
theirMuḥammad But the Abū ꜤAlī al-Faḍl
Thanāʾullāh
difference ibn al-theal-Pānīpatī
al-Maẓharī
between
view was not just
Ḥasan held
al-Ṭabarsī by ‘liberal’
(d.
two positions is only one of detail, both representing 1153) thinkers
(Ṭabarsī such
2006, as
5:307); al-Jāh
Pānīpatī Abū . iz ,
l-Faraj
the2007,
same
a prominent
ꜤAbd
4:24);
essential al-Raḥmān
Abū Muḥammad
litterateur
interpretation,ibn ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq
ꜤAbdallāh ibn ꜤAbbās
tazilı̄ (d. 686–7). (Ibn ꜤAbbās 1987, (d.p.1200)196);(Ibn aAbū l-ḤajjājhistorianMujāhid ˙ theorist;
and Mu namely,ꜤAlī
advocate, and
that ibn the Ibn
al-Jawzī
women’sKhald ūn,
cutting notable
of al-Jawzī
their hands 2002, n.d.,
was 4:167);anand
4:262); Fakhr
involuntary al-Dīnact
Muḥammad Abū iton ꜤAbdallāh
represented
al-Ṭāhir ibn ꜤᾹshūr
their part, a (d. 197
ibn Jabr al-Qurashī (d. 722) (Mujāhid Muḥammad 2005, ibn p, 117).
ꜤUmar Abū al-Rāzīl-Ḥasan Muqātil
(d.modern,
1210) (Rāzī ibn 1938, 18:126–127); Abū ꜤAbdallāh
the dominant position position inaccepted
medieval by most Muslim classical educational
and thought.
Ashraf
Sunnī ꜤAlī
and It wasmufassirūn
Thānawī
ShīꜤī, shared
(d. 1943) and cham-
(Thānawī
(“Qurʾānic 1935, 5:78);
Sulaymān (d. 767) (Muqātil 2003, Muḥammad2:147); Abūibn JaꜤfarAḥmad Muḥammad al-Qurṭubī ibn Jarīr al-
(d.(Muḥammad
1272) (Qurṭubī
pioned exegetes”), such asfrom the following: ShafīꜤ 1967, 1990, 5:50); 9:179–180);
Abū ofl-AꜤlā
the Mawdūd
Ṭabarī (d. 923)by numerous
(Ṭabarī 1909, 12:122); theorists
ꜤAbdallāhAbū l-Layth ibn ꜤUmar
different
al-Samarqandī
al-Bayḍāwī
intellectual
(d.(d. 983) 1286)(Samar- streams,
(Bayḍāwī
including
1968, 1:493);
those
Abū4 Ḥayyān
ꜤAbdallāh ibn ꜤAbbās (d. 686–7). (Ibn ꜤAbbās 1972a,
1987, p. 1949–1972b,
196); Abū 2:397);
l-Ḥajjāj Mujāhid Muḥammad Ḥusayn
qandītradition (ahl al-sunna
1993, 2:159–160); Abū Isḥāq wa-l-jamā
al-ThaꜤlabī
al-Gharnāṭī a).(d.
(d. Al-Ghazālı̄
1344) 1035) (Abū Ḥayyān
(Tha‘labī (Minhāj,
2004,
1992,3:372); p. 95), forꜤImād
6:267–269); instance, al-Dīncommended IsmāꜤīl ibn
ibn ꜤUmar al-Zamakhsharī ibn Jabr (d. al-Qurashī (d. 722) (Mujāhid 2005,(Ṭabāṭabāʾī
p,Ibn 117). Abū 2002, 12:149).
l-Ḥasan Muqātil ibn
argumentation
Maḥmūd (mutārah a)
Kathīr
. as a
(d. most
1144)
1373) effective
(Zamakhsharī
(Ibn Kathīr basis
1983, n.d., for successful
2:253.);
4:23–24); Burhān studying.
al-Dīn Abū He
l-Ḥasan also advised
ibn ꜤUmar
ꜤAṭiyya al-Andalusī 1147) Sulaymān
(d.post-kuttāb (Ibn ꜤAṭiyya (d. 767) 3:239); (Muqātil 2003,
ꜤAlī 2:147); Abū This JaꜤfar Muḥammad ibn list
is not an exhaustive Jarīrofal- the mufassirūn wh
students in the al-BiqāꜤī stage (d.2007,
1480)
to (BiqāꜤī
start withAbū
2003,grammar. al-FaḍlMuḥammad
4:34–35); ibn
This al- is ibn ꜤAlī ibn
because, he Muḥammad
explained, al-it is
Ḥasan al-Ṭabarsī (d. 1153) (Ṭabarsī Ṭabarī (d. 923)
2006, 5:307); (Ṭabarī 1909, 12:122);
l-Faraj ꜤAbd1996,
Abū (Shawkānī Abū
al-Raḥmānstandard
l-Layth ibn l-Thanāʾ Maḥmūd al-Ᾱlūsī (d. 12. It is a fairly
interpretation
al-Samarqandī of
(d. verse
983) 31 of
(Samar- sūra
only through understanding Shawkānī and (d. 1834)proper usage of 3:26); Abū
words (alfāz ) that scholars could reach
ꜤAlī ibn al-Jawzī (d. 1200) (Ibn qandī al-Jawzī 1993, 2002, 2:159–160);
4:167); FakhrAbūal-Dīn IsḥāqAbū should
al-ThaꜤlabī
ꜤAbdallāh suffice
(d. 1035) to show
(Tha‘labī that 2004, the said interpretation has pr
3:372);
1854) (Ᾱlūsī, 13:229–230); Rashīḍ Riḍā (d. 1935) ˙ (Rashīḍ Riḍā n.d., 12:293);
their academic
Muḥammad ibn ꜤUmar objectives.
al-RāzīMaḥmūd (d. 1210) (al-Ghazālı̄,
ibn
(Rāzī ꜤUmar1938, Minhāj,
al-Zamakhsharī
18:126–127); pp.Abū 85–86).
exegetical
(d. Al-Zarn
1144) (Zamakhsharī
ꜤAbdallāh tradition ūjı̄,
behind a
n.d., notable
it.2:253.); partisan
Ibn
Muḥammad Thanāʾullāh al-Maẓharī al-Pānīpatī (d. 1810) (Thanāʾullāh al-
of traditional Muslim ꜤAṭiyya
pedagogy al-Andalusī in the (d. 1147)
sixth/twelfth(Ibn ꜤAṭiyya 2007, 3:239);
century, attached Abū ꜤAlī al-Faḍl
great ibn al-
Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Qurṭubī
Pānīpatī (d.
2007, 1272)
4:24); (Qurṭubī
Abū Muḥammad 1967, 9:179–180); ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq Haqqānī (d. 1911)importance
(Ḥaqqānī
ꜤAbdallāh ibn ꜤUmar al-Bayḍāwī Ḥasan (d. al-Ṭabarsī
1286) (Bayḍāwī(d. 1153) 1968,(Ṭabarsī
1:493); 2006,Abū
3.5:307);
Iṣlāḥī’s
Ḥayyān Abū l-Faraj ꜤAbd al-Raḥmān ibn
Interpretation
to awareness and comprehension: n.d., 4:262); Muḥammad ‘a learner should
al-Ṭāhir ibn ꜤᾹshūr
not 4:167);write
(d. 1973) down ꜤᾹshūr 1984, 12:263);
(Ibnsomething which he
ꜤAlī ibn1992, al-Jawzī (d. 1200)ꜤImād (Ibn al-Jawzī IsmāꜤīl 2002, The Fakhr al-Dīn
Pakistani Qurʾānic Abū ꜤAbdallāh
exegete,
al-Gharnāṭī (d. 1344) (Abū Ḥayyān
does not understand, Ashraf
as this ꜤAlī 6:267–269);
Thānawī
causes (d. 1943)al-Dīn
dullness, (Thānawī
devitalizes 1935, ibn 5:78);
percipience Muḥammad and ShafīꜤ
wastes (d. Amīn
1976)one’s
Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī (d
Kathīr (d. 1373) (Ibn Kathīr 1983, Muḥammad
4:23–24); ibn ꜤUmar
Burhān al-Dīn al-Rāzī
Abū (d.
l-Ḥasan1210)ibn (Rāzī
Urdu ꜤUmar 1938, 18:126–127);
Qurʾānic commentary, Abū ꜤAbdallāh Tadabbur-i Qurʾān (“Refl
(Muḥammad ShafīꜤ 1990, 5:50); Abū l-AꜤlā Mawdūdī (d. 1979) (Mawdūdī 1949–
time’. Al-Zarn ūjı̄2003,
added Muḥammad that if the ibn learner
AḥmadꜤAlī takes
al-Qurṭubī the question
(d. 1272)
from—or of(Qurṭubī
rather, understanding
rejects—the1967, 9:179–180); lightly interpretation
aforestated and an
al-BiqāꜤī (d. 1480) (BiqāꜤī 4:34–35);
1972a, Muḥammad 1949–1972b, ibn 2:397);ibn Muḥammad
4 Muḥammad Ḥusayn
al- al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī (d. 1982)
does (d.
Shawkānī not1834)exert the needed
(Shawkānī ꜤAbdallāh
1996, effort
3:26); ibnAbū ꜤUmar
in this al-Bayḍāwī
l-Thanāʾ regard Maḥmūd (d. 1286)
time and
ing
al-Ᾱlūsī (Bayḍāwī
of again,
the
(d. verse 1968,
he/she
(Iṣlāḥī 1:493);would
2001–2002, Abū Ḥayyān get used
4:208–210). to
Here, follow
(Ṭabāṭabāʾī 2002, 12:149).
PEERnegligence
Religions 2021, 12, x FOR1854) REVIEW and endRashīḍ
(Ᾱlūsī, 13:229–230); al-Gharnāṭī
up not
This
Riḍā
ismaking
not
(d. 1935)
(d. 1344) (Rashīḍ
an(Ibn out(Abū
exhaustive evenḤayyān the
Riḍāsimplest
list
1992, 12:293);
n.d.,
of the 1.
6:267–269);
mufassirūnIndiscourses.
verse who 30,ꜤImād
the He al-Dīn
women,
subscribe
of 8IsmāꜤīl
2advised
to criticizing
the ꜤUmar
ibnZulaykhā, say: in
students
above-stated
Muḥammad Thanāʾullāh Kathīr
al-Maẓharī (d. 1373)
al-Pānīpatī (d. (sabq) Kathīr 1983,
1810) so 4:23–24);
(Thanāʾullāh Burhān al-wayal-Dīn Abū l-Ḥasan ibn
to seek to decreasestandard their assigned
(d. 1480) work
interpretation of verse
2003,31 of sūra as to 12.give Itisisclear
a fairly to to us such
that she
representative haslist,
healthy gone astray!”
learning
though, and This state
Pānīpatī 2007, 4:24); Abū Muḥammad al-BiqāꜤī
should suffice
ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq
to show
(BiqāꜤī
that
Haqqānī
the
4:34–35);
said
(d. 1911)Muḥammad
interpretation
(Ḥaqqānī elements
has
ibn ofꜤAlī
practically
ibn Muḥammad
malāma, the shamāta,
whole andal-iddi
weight ofꜤāʾ,
the that is, of
5
practices
n.d., 4:262);
as cogitation and
Shawkānī reflection.
ibn ꜤᾹshūr (d. 1834) He also underpinned
(Shawkānī
(Ibn ꜤᾹshūr 1996,1984, 3:26);12:263);
Abū the efficiency
l-Thanāʾ Maḥmūd of such al-Ᾱlūsī techniques
(d. respectively:
2. Muḥammad
Traditional Muslim al-Ṭāhir
exegetical Interpretation
tradition
(d. 1973)
of
behind Qurʾān 12:31
it. Rashīḍ schadenfreude, and boastful claim, rep
as ꜤAlī
Ashraf collective
Thānawī studying
(d. 1943) 1854) (mudhākara),
(Thānawī (Ᾱlūsī, 1935, 5:78); forensics
13:229–230); Muḥammad (munāz Riḍā ara),
ShafīꜤ (d. 1976)
(d. in and
1935) literary
their(Rashīḍview, that Riḍādebates
then.d., (mut
wife12:293); ārah.a)
of a .high-ranking offic
The generally accepted Muḥammad answer
8 l-AꜤlā Mawdūdī
to
Thanāʾullāh the question
al-Maẓharī just posed
˙al-Pānīpatī is that the women
(d. 1810) were
(Thanāʾullāh al- should fail to m
(Muḥammad
(al-Zarn ShafīꜤ 1990,
ūjı̄, pp. 5:50);
101–6). Abū
3. Iṣlāḥī’s Interpretation (d. 1979) (Mawdūdī 1949–
slave—and stranger still, that she
“stunned by his [Joseph’s] beauty.” According to some interpreters, ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq the Haqqānī
women, dazzled
1972a, 1949–1972b, 2:397);4 Pānīpatī Muḥammad 2007, 4:24); Ḥusayn Abū al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī
Muḥammad (d. 1982) pleasure, intothat (d. 1911)
she, received (Ḥaqqānī
like them aprivate noblewoman, shou
Although
by Joseph’s beauty,Ibn Sı̄nā thought (d. 428/1037)
that they werewas using considered
knives to cut
ꜤᾹshūr fortunate
some food(d. item, have
like fruit,
as aꜤᾹshūr
n.d.,The Pakistani
4:262); Muḥammad Qurʾānic exegete,
al-Ṭāhir Amīn
ibn Aḥsan (d.Iṣlāḥī
1973) 1418/1997), in his12:263);
multivolume
(Ṭabāṭabāʾī 2002, 12:149). slave and,(Ibn result, incur 1984, disgrace; and boastful cl
but accidentally
tutoring in childhood, cut
Urdu their
Ashraf hands.
as aꜤAlītheorist
Qurʾānic Others
Thānawīhe
commentary, leave
(d. was the food
an ardent
Tadabbur-i
1943) (Thānawī item out
Qurʾān
1935, and
proponent simply
(“Reflection
5:78); Muḥammad say that
of classroom
on thethe Qurʾān”),
ShafīꜤ (d. 1976) teaching.
differs
This is notwomen,
an exhaustive
awestruck list of Joseph’s
by
from—or the rather,
mufassirūnbeauty, who
rejects—the cut subscribe
their hands.
aforestated to the But above-stated
the
interpretation difference and between
presents theown 1949–
his understand-
(Muḥammad ShafīꜤ 1990, 5:50); Abū l-AꜤlā Mawdūdī (d. 1979) (Mawdūdī
standardAccording
interpretation
two positions
to him,31the
of verse is only of
ofone
classroom
sūra
the of 12. It (Iṣlāḥī
detail, is abothenvironment
fairly representative
representing
provides
thelist,same though, theand
essential
most conducive format for
interpretation,
ing1972a, verse
1949–1972b, 2001–2002,
2:397); 4:208–210).
Muḥammad
94 pomposity Here, Ḥusayn
following, is his argument
al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī (d. step 1982)by step:
learning
should suffice to show duethat to
namely, that the 1. the ‘motives
said
women’s for
interpretationcutting competition,
has
of theirpractically
hands the
was whole
an weight
involuntary (mubāhā),of the
act on debate
their part, and simulation,
(Ṭabāṭabāʾī 2002, 12:149).
In verse 30, the women, criticizing Zulaykhā, say: innā la-narāha fī aḍalālin mubīnin “It
exegeticalwhich
tradition are
position behind
all it.
helpful
accepted by mostin getting
classicaltheir and modern, [i.e., the Sunnī pupils’]
and ShīꜤī, manners
mufassirūn polished,
(“Qurʾānic their fervour
This is clear
is nottoanusexhaustive that she has listgoneof the astray!”
mufassirūn This statement,
who subscribe saystoIṣlāḥī, combines the
the above-stated
exegetes”),
stimulated, andsuchtheir as thegood following: customs practiced’ (Ibn Sı̄na, pp. 85–86. See also Mirbabaev
3. Iṣlāḥī’s Interpretation standard elements
interpretation of malāma, of verseshamāta, 31 ofand sūraiddi 12.Ꜥāʾ,It isthat
5
a fairlyis, ofrepresentative
reproach, malicious list, though,pleasure andor
2000, pp.ꜤAbdallāh 34–35; should ibn ꜤAbbās
Gil adi 2005,(d. to
schadenfreude,
suffice 686–7).
p.
show 115;(Ibn
and ꜤAbbās
the said1987,
thatGünther
boastful 2006,
claim, p. respectively:
interpretation 196);
p. 380; Abū hasl-Ḥajjāj
Tritton,
reproach,
practically Mujāhid
p.thein83).that
whole This approach
it isweight
quite strange,
of the
The Pakistani Qurʾānic
ibn Jabr exegete, Amīn
Religions
al-Qurashī 2021,
(d. Aḥsan
12,
722) x FOR Iṣlāḥī
(Mujāhid PEER (d.REVIEW
1418/1997), in his multivolume
is strikingly exegetical
reminiscent in theirtradition
of view,
the that
behind
so-called it.2005,
the wife p,of117).
‘maieutic Abū
a high-rankingmethod’,l-Ḥasan Muqātil
official should
as developed ibn fall in love with her
by Socrates
Urdu Qurʾānic commentary,
Sulaymān (d. Tadabbur-i
767) (MuqātilQurʾān (“Reflection
2003, 2:147); Abūon the JaꜤfar Qurʾān”),
Muḥammad differs ibn Jarīr
slave—and stranger still, that she should fail to make himal- do her wish; malicious
from—orand rather,Plato, and
rejects—the
Ṭabarī (d. 923) its role
aforestated
(Ṭabarī in evoking
interpretation
1909,in12:122); and
and
Abū activating
presents
l-Layth his own pupils’
understand- ’already-known‘ knowledge
3. Iṣlāḥī’s pleasure,
Interpretation that she, like them aal-Samarqandī
noblewoman,(d. 983) (Samar-
should suffer defeat at the hands of a
ing of theandverseskills
(Iṣlāḥī (see
2001–2002,
qandī Günther
1993, 4:208–210).
2:159–160); 2016, Here,
Abū pp. following,
Isḥāq 88,
al-ThaꜤlabīis hisGenerally,
91). argument
(d. 1035) step the
(Tha‘labī by step:ideas
2004, put
3:372); forward by early
Article The slave and, asQurʾānic
Pakistani a result,exegete, incur 2. disgrace;
Traditional
Amīn Aḥsan andMuslim boastful
Iṣlāḥī (d. claim,
Interpretationin that,in
1418/1997), had
ofhis they
Qurʾān been
12:31
multivolume in her
1. In verseMuslim30, theeducationalists,
Maḥmūd ibn ꜤUmaras
women, criticizing Günther
Zulaykhā,
al-Zamakhsharī say:(2006,
innā pp.
(d.la-narāha
1144) fī ḍalālin concludes,
385–86)
(Zamakhsharī mubīnin n.d.,“It ‘displays
2:253.); Ibn an awareness
Urdu Qurʾānic commentary, Tadabbur-i Qurʾān (“Reflection on thetoQurʾān”), differs
is clearWhy Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut Their Hands? Amīn
to us that
of principal ꜤAṭiyya
she has gone
al-Andalusī
issues, astray!”
an open-minded
from—or
(d. 1147) This
rather,5 rejects—the
(Ibn ꜤAṭiyya
statement,
approach, saysand
2007,
aforestated
“stunned
The generally
Iṣlāḥī,
3:239); combines
a preference
interpretation
by his [Joseph’s]
accepted answer
Abū ꜤAlī al-Faḍl the
and for
ibn
presents
beauty.”
al-
analytical his
the question
ownreasoning’.
According understand-
just posed is th
to some interpreters,
elements of malāma, Ḥasanshamāta,
al-Ṭabarsī and (d.iddi 1153)Ꜥāʾ, (Ṭabarsī
that is, of 2006,reproach,
5:307); Abū malicious ꜤAbd al-Raḥmān
l-Farajpleasure or ibn
It should
schadenfreude,ꜤAlī andibn
be
boastful
ing
al-Jawzī
of thein
notedclaim,
(d. 1200)
versethis (Iṣlāḥī
respectively:
regard
(Ibn al-Jawzī
that
2001–2002,
reproach, 2002, in
4:208–210).
the
by
but
Qurit ān
Joseph’s
that Fakhr
4:167);
accidentally
Here,
is quite
itself
beauty,
al-Dīn
following,
cut
enjoins
thought
strange,
is
Abū ꜤAbdallāh
their
his
that
hands.
argument
reflection
they
Others
were using
leave
step by
and
the
step: to cut some
careful
knives
food
consideration
in their that the(infra).
view, Muḥammad 1.
wifeibn ofThe
In verse
ꜤUmar importance
a high-ranking 30, the women,
al-Rāzī (d.official of argumentation
1210) criticizing
should
(Rāzī 1938, in loveand
Zulaykhā,
fall 18:126–127); withpolemics
say: innā
Abū la-narāha
her ꜤAbdallāh ḍalālin
in the Muslim intel-
fī mubīnin “Ititem out and
is clear to us that she has women,
gone awestruck
astray!” This by Joseph’ssays
statement, beauty, Iṣlāḥī, cutcombines
their hands. the But the dif
lectual
slave—and
Mustansir Mir life
strangerwas
Muḥammad further
still, thatibnshe enhanced
should al-Qurṭubī
Aḥmad failby to themake rise him
(d. of do
1272) schools
her wish;
(Qurṭubī of jurisprudence
malicious
1967, 9:179–180); (fiqh) and theology
elements of malāma, shamāta, two and positions
iddi Ꜥ āʾ, is only
5 that is, one
of of detail,malicious
reproach,
a Ḥayyān
both representing pleasure the same ess
or
pleasure, in that
(kalām) inꜤAbdallāh
she,
the like them
ibn ꜤUmar
a noblewoman,
second-third/eighth-ninth
schadenfreude,
al-Bayḍāwīshould (d. 1286)
and claim,
boastful
suffer
centuries,
namely,
defeat at
(Bayḍāwī
claim,had that andthe hands
1968,
the by
respectively:
1:493);
women’s
of
foreignAbū
reproach,
intellectual
cutting of their influences
hands was an involuntar
slave and, as a al-Gharnāṭī
result, incur (d. disgrace;
1344) and
(Abū Ḥayyān
boastful 1992, in that,
6:267–269); ꜤImād
they been in
al-Dīn her IsmāꜤīlinibn that it is quite strange,
in the course of the Youngstown translation State movement
University, Youngstown, which
position OH took
44555, USA;
accepted place
by between
mmir@ysu.edu
most classical theand second
modern, half
Sunnīof and ShīꜤī, m
Kathīr (d. 1373)in (Ibntheir Kathīr view, 1983, that4:23–24);
the wifeBurhān of a high-ranking
al-Dīn Abū l-Ḥasan officialibn should
ꜤUmarfall in love with her
the second/eighth and the
slave—and late fourth/tenth
stranger still, exegetes”),
that centuries.
she should such It
failasis the
to following:
interesting
make him do that her argumentation
wish; malicious
al-BiqāꜤī (d. 1480) (BiqāꜤīSūra
Abstract: 2003, 12 4:34–35);
of the Qurʾān, Muḥammad Joseph, tells ibntheꜤAlīstory ibnofMuḥammad
the prophet Joseph. al- He is bought as a slave
and polemics Shawkānī were pleasure,
supported
(d. 1834) (Shawkānī in that she, like
personally
1996, 3:26);them beAbū ꜤAbdallāh
asomenoblewoman,
l-Thanāʾ of the ibn ꜤAbbās
Maḥmūd should
Abbāsid suffer
(d. defeat
686–7). (d. (Ibn
caliphs, ꜤAbbās
at whothe hands 1987,
wanted of ap. 196); Abū
by an Egyptian high official, whose wife—tradition calls heral-Ᾱlūsī
Zulaykhā—makes an unsuccessful at-
slave and, asRashīḍ a result,Riḍā incur(d. disgrace; ibn Jabr and boastful
al-Qurashī claim, (d. in 722)that, had they2005,
(Mujāhid beenp, in 117).
her Abū l-Ḥas
to immunize 1854) the (Ᾱlūsī, Muslim13:229–230); entourage and personnel 1935) against
(Rashīḍ
tempt to seduce him, and is ridiculed by her peers for her failure to do so. She invites them to a Riḍā the emergence
n.d., 12:293); of non-Islamic
Muḥammad Thanāʾullāh al-Maẓharī al-Pānīpatī Sulaymān (d.Joseph
1810) (d. 767) (Muqātil 2003, 2:147); Abū JaꜤfar Muḥamm
(Thanāʾullāh
banquet, hands them knives, and presents before them. Uponal-seeing him, the women cut
Pānīpatī 2007, their 4:24);hands Abū Muḥammad ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq Ṭabarī (d. 923)(d. (Ṭabarī 1909, 12:122); Abū l-Layth al-Samarqandī
with the knives they are holding (Qurʾān 12:31). (Ḥaqqānī Haqqānī 1911) According to the generally accepted
n.d., 4:262); Muḥammad al-Ṭāhir ꜤᾹshūr qandī 1993,
(IbnsoꜤᾹshūr 2:159–160); Abū Isḥāq al-ThaꜤlabī (d. 1035) (Tha‘la
exegetical view, theyibn do so because (d.they 1973) were awestruck 1984, by12:263);
Joseph’s beauty that they did not
Ashraf ꜤAlī Thānawī Maḥmūd ibn ꜤUmar al-Zamakhsharī (d. 1144) (Zamakhsharī n
know what they were doing and accidentally cut their hands while1976)
(d. 1943) (Thānawī 1935, 5:78); Muḥammad ShafīꜤ (d. thinking that they were cutting
(Muḥammad ShafīꜤ 1990, 5:50); Abū l-AꜤlā Mawdūdī ꜤAṭiyya (d. al-Andalusī
1979) (Mawdūdī (d. 1147) 1949– (Ibn ꜤAṭiyya 2007, 3:239); Abū ꜤAl
some food item, like fruit. Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī differs from this view. He argues that the women
1972a, 1949–1972b, 2:397);4 Muḥammad Ḥusayn Ḥasan al-Ṭabarsī
al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī (d. 1153) 1982) 2006, 5:307); Abū l-Faraj ꜤAbd
(d. (Ṭabarsī
wished to succeed where Zulaykhā had failed, and, unable to persuade Joseph in the beginning,
Religions 2022, 13, 179 8 of 19
disputations in the state administrative apparatus. In about 166/782, the caliph al-Mahdı̄ (r.
158–69/775–85) commissioned his courtier Timothy I, the Patriarch of the Church of the
East, to translate Aristotle’s Topics, which discusses dialectics and the art of argumentation
Articlein general (Brentjes and Morrison 2011, p. 568).
In classical Arabic usage, jadal (also jidāl and mujādala), which has the general meaning
Why Did the
of ‘debate’, could Egyptian
denote a good Noblewomen
or a bad intellectual Cut Their Hands?
practice—depending on Amīn
the context
id the Egyptian Noblewomen Aḥsan Cut
Iṣlāḥīʾs
and methods. Their
This Hands?
Interpretation
is already reflected in Amīn ofthe Qurʾān
Qur ānic 12:31
use of the term and its derivatives
Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation of Qurʾān (Qur ān, 2.12:31 197; 4. 109; 6. 25; 8. 6; 11. 32, 74; 16. 111, 125; 18. 56; 22. 8; 29. 46; 40. 4, 5;
Mir10 Some tended to differentiate between jadal (to mean learned argumentation) and
43. 58).
Mustansir
r each of jidāl and mujādala (connoting quarrelling). The latter two practices are detested,
primarily in polemics, seeing
Youngstown that
State they Youngstown,
University, are usually OH done notmmir@ysu.edu
44555, USA; to reach the truth but to either
defeat
Youngstown State University, Youngstown, theUSA;
OH 44555, disputant
mmir@ysu.eduor obfuscate the issue. The term and the practices related to it were
particularly demoralized by certain
by an Egyptian high tendencies,
official, as well as the public, in days when the Mus-
Abstract: Sūra 12 of the Qurʾān, Joseph, tells the story of the prophet Joseph. He is bought aswhose
a slavewife—tradition calls her Zulaykhā—makes an unsuccessful at-
by an Egyptian high official, whose lim communities
wife—tradition calls herwere
temptoverwhelmed
to seduce him,
Zulaykhā—makes andby
anArticle non-Islamic
is ridiculed
unsuccessful theological
at- by her peers andto philosophical
for her failure drifts.
do so. She invites them to a
tempt to seduce him, and is ridiculedThebymisapplications
her peers for her failure of jadal
banquet,
to do further
hands
so. them
She enhanced
knives,
invites a an already
andtopresents
them persistent
Joseph before them. Uponidea thathim,
seeing independent
the women cut
thinking
banquet, hands them knives, and presents is difficult
Joseph before them. their
toUponhands
reconcile withhim,
seeing theWhy
with knives
thea women Did
they
believer’sare the
cut holding Egyptian
(Qurʾān
compliance 12:31).
to the Noblewomen
According
divine to the generally
truth (rational vs.Cut Th
accepted
their hands with the knives they are holding (Qurʾān 12:31). exegetical
According view,
to the they do so because
generally accepted they were so awestruck by Joseph’s beauty that they did not
spiritual knowledge). Against thisAḥsan backdrop,Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation
hands while thinking thatof they Qurʾān
were cutting 12:3
al-Zarnūjı̄ praised the ahl al-sunna wa-l-jamā a
exegetical view, they do so because they were so awestruck by know what they
Joseph’s beauty were that doing
theyanddid accidentally
not cut their
for being guided tosome the truth and
food item, likeimmunized
fruit. Amīn against heresies, as a reward for them
Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī differs from this view. He argues that the womenhaving
know what they were doing and accidentally cut their hands while thinking that they were cutting
appealed
some food item, like fruit. Amīn Aḥsan to God
Iṣlāḥī differs from tothisguide
wished
view.toHethem
succeed
argues through
Mustansir
where
that the the
ZulaykhāMirtempests
women of spurious
had failed, and, doctrines.
unable to persuade The
Joseph in the people
beginning,
the Egyptian Noblewomen of Cut
aberrance Their
(ahl Hands?
al-d alāla),
they on
threatened theAmīn
to
wished to succeed where Zulaykhā had failed, and, unable to. persuade Joseph in the beginning, other
kill hand,
themselves if were
Joseph beguiled
would not by
listen their
to them, minds
and, to and
convinceopinions
Joseph that
they were serious in carrying outūjı̄,
the threat, they deliberately cutState
their hands with knives. This ar- USA; m
lāḥīʾs Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31
they threatened to kill themselves if(ra y),
Joseph and
would so
notthey
listen were
Article
to them, led
and,
they were serious in carrying out the threat, they deliberatelyticle
astray
to convince (al-Zarn
Joseph
giveshands
cut their
that
detailswith
p. 107).
of Iṣlāḥīʾs
Youngstown
knives.interpretation
This ar-
University, Youngstown, OH 44555,
of the Qurʾānic verse in question and discusses how that
ticle gives details of Iṣlāḥīʾs interpretation of the Qurʾānic Why Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut Their Hands? Am
interpretation
verse in question
4. The Dichotomy of Memorized versus Scripted Knowledge
callsdiscusses
and for re-evaluating
how that some crucial aspects of theSūra
Abstract: Qurʾānic
12 of the
in Islamic
story of Joseph.
Qurʾān,
Pedagogy Joseph, tells the story of t
interpretation calls for re-evaluating some crucial aspects of the Qurʾānic story of Joseph. by an Egyptian high official, whose wife—tradition calls
For an adequate Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31
appraisal
Keywords:
Egyptian
Qurʾān;
noblewomen
ofQurʾānic
the traditionexegesis; of learning
Iṣlāḥī; Amīn Aḥsan theIṣlāḥī;
tempt Qur
to ān him,
Joseph;
seduce byZulaykhā;
heart, it needs
Potiphar’s
and is ridiculed to
bywife;
her peers for
Youngstown
Keywords: State University,
Qurʾān; Youngstown,
Qurʾānic be
exegesis; OH related
44555,Amīn
Iṣlāḥī; USA; toAḥsan
the overall
mmir@ysu.edu
Iṣlāḥī; Muslim
Joseph; Zulaykhā; intellectual
Potiphar’s wife; culture. Both orality banquet,and hands aurality
them knives, are and
archetypal
presents Joseph befor
Egyptian noblewomen Citation: Mir, Mustansir. 2021. Why
Arab-Islamic features,
Mustansir Mir which are deeply grounded in pre-Islamic their handspractices
with the knives andthey are holding (Qurʾān 1
conditions
ansir. 2021. Why
Abstract: Sūra 12 of the Qurʾān, Did Joseph, tells the
the Egyptian story of the
Noblewomen Cutprophet Joseph. He is bought as a slave exegetical view, they do so because they were so awest
of life. 11 Illiteracy was the norm among nomads as well as townspeople in pre-Islamic
oblewomen Cut by an Egyptian high official, whose Theirwife—tradition
Hands? Amīn Aḥsan calls her Zulaykhā—makes an unsuccessful at-
Iṣlāḥīʾs know what they were doing and accidentally cut their h
Arabia, yet forthey achieved the Sheapex Youngstown
ofthem
Arabicto a State University,
literary Youngstown,
skill with OH 44555,
their USA; mmir@ysu.edu
Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs tempt to seduce him, and is ridiculedInterpretation
by her of Qurʾān
peers 12:31. her failure1. The
to doProblem
so. Stated
invites some food item,oral poetry
like fruit. Amīntradition.
Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī differs fr
banquet, hands them knives, Religions
and 12: x. Joseph before them. Upon seeing him, the women cut
presents
rʾān 12:31. 1. The Problem Stated Nevertheless, literacy and In Sūra written
12, which texts
tellswere
the storysporadic
of Joseph, and were
verses
wished not
to23–29
succeed an
relate
whereintrinsic
how part
the wife
Zulaykhā
Abstract: Sūra 12 of the Qurʾān, Joseph, tells the story of the prophet Joseph. He is boug
of
hadoffailed,
the and, un
their hands with the knives theyhttps://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
are holding (Qurʾān 12:31). According to high
the generally accepted ꜤAzīz
In Sūra 12, which tells the life. story In verses Egyptian
the all-important
of Joseph, 23–29 relatecity ofofficial
how Makka,
the called
wife for
of the (Potipharonly
example, ofthey
theathreatened
Bible)—following
handful to ofkillthe tradition,
themselves
by an Egyptian high official, whose wife—tradition calls her Zulaykhā—makes an unsQurayshites we will
if Joseph would not li
90/xxxxx exegetical view, they do so because they were so awestruck by Joseph’s call her beauty that they did not
Zulaykhā—makes an unsuccessful attempt to seduce him, whereupon some
Egyptian high official called ꜤAzīz
Academic knew (Potiphar
Editor: reading
Roberto of the
Tottoli and Bible)—following
writing, which tradition,
they we
temptlearned will from
to seduce him, and Hı̄rite they were
and Syrian
is ridiculed
serious
by her peers
in carrying
schoolmasters out the threat,
for her failure to(see
they deliber
do so. She invit
know what they were doing and accidentally cut their hands while thinking that they very
were cutting
call her Zulaykhā—makes an unsuccessful attempt towomen seduceinhim, the city,
whereupon likely
banquet,
her peers, ridicule
some ˙ her,
ticle saying
gives that
details of“It is clear
Iṣlāḥīʾs to us that of
interpretation she the Qurʾāni
oberto Tottoli some food item, like fruit. Amīn Aḥsan Gilliot 2012,from
Iṣlāḥī differs pp.thisxxii–xxix).
view.gone
has He argues After
astray” that the
the
(innā risehands
women
la-narāhā
them knives,
offīIslam, there
ḍalālin mubīnin
andwerepresents Joseph
[verse only
interpretation 30]). 1 A
calls
beforeamongst
aforseries
few them. Uponthe
of events
re-evaluating
seeing him, the
follow
some crucial aspect
women in the city, very likely her24peers,
Received: May 2021 ridicule her, saying that “It is clear to us
their that she
hands
wished to succeed where Zulaykhā
has gone astray” (innā la-narāhā Prophet’s
had
Accepted: fī
failed,
27 ḍalālin
and, comrades
unable to persuade
July 2021 mubīnin [verse
who
(verses
30]). A were
Joseph
1 30–34) 2:infamiliar
series the beginning,
of events with reading and writing. These were usually the genera
follow
with the knives they are holding (Qurʾān 12:31). According to
21 exegetical view, they do so because they were so awestruck by Joseph’s beauty that
they threatened to 2kill themselves if Joseph
entrustedwould 2021not
withlistenscribal
to them, responsibilities,
and, to convince Joseph that
21 (verses 30–34) : Published: 9 August Zulaykhā arranges know aparticularly
banquet,
what they to
after
which
were doingshe the
and
migration
Keywords:
invites Qurʾān;
those
accidentally women;to Yathrib,
Qurʾānic andIṣlāḥī;
exegesis; the Amīn Aḥsa
cut their hands while thinking that they
they were serious in carrying out the threat, they deliberately cut their hands with knives. This ar- Egyptian noblewomen
2021 Zulaykhā arranges a banquet, institutionalization
to which she invites those she
of thewomen; hands
first Muslim each guest
somestate.a knife;
food In such
item, like a context,
fruit. Amīn Aḥsan knowledge
Iṣlāḥī differs (including divine
from this view. He argues that
ticle gives details of Iṣlāḥīʾs interpretation of theMDPI
Publisher’s Note: Qurʾānic verse in question
stays neu- Joseph and isdiscusses
presented how
Citation: that
before
Mir, the women;
Mustansir. 2021. Why
she hands each guest a knife; knowledge) used to be transferred orally
wished through
to succeed personal
where Zulaykhā meeting
had failed,(or audition)
and, unable tobetween
persuade Joseph in th
MDPI stays neu-
interpretation calls for re-evaluating someregard
tral with crucialto aspects of the Qurʾānic
jurisdictional
thestory
women of Joseph.
Did the
are Egyptianby
stunned Noblewomen
Joseph’s Cutbeauty, cut their hands, and exclaim that
Joseph is presented before the women; they threatened to such,
kill themselves if Joseph would not listen to them, and, to convince
claims inthe transmitter
published maps and institu- and the Joseph
seekerisfor knowledge.
Their Hands? Amīn Aḥsan As Iṣlāḥīʾs audition developed into an integral
to jurisdictional
the women are stunned by Joseph’s beauty, cut their hands, and not a mortal
exclaimthey that
werehuman
seriousbut in an angel;out the threat, they deliberately cut their hands with kni
carrying
maps and institu- Keywords: Qurʾān; Qurʾānic exegesis; procedure
Iṣlāḥī; Amīn Aḥsan
in the Muslim
Iṣlāḥī; learning
Joseph; Zulaykhā;
Zulaykhā, practice.
Potiphar’s wife;
Interpretation
feeling of Qurʾān 12:31.
vindicated before the women, 1. Thesays Problem Stated will either do
that Joseph
Egyptian noblewomen ticle12:
Religions gives
x. details of Iṣlāḥīʾs interpretation of the Qurʾānic verse in question and discus
By the late second/eighth
her wish or
Zulaykhā, feeling vindicated before the women, says that Joseph willhttps://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx century,
be imprisoned
either writing
do
interpretation
and had been
humiliated; widely
In Sūradisseminated
12, which tells the
calls for re-evaluating some crucial aspects of the thanks
Qurʾānicto
story ofstory
Joseph, ve
of Josep
. 2021. Why
her wish or be imprisoned and three discrete factors: (i)
humiliated; Joseph prays to God forof
the employment protection
Persianagainst scribes thein women’s
Egyptian thehigh machinations,
Muslim calledand ꜤAzīz
officialadministration;God(Potiphar of th
women Cut
Joseph prays to God for protection against the women’s grants
machinations,his prayer. and God call herIṣlāḥī;Zulaykhā—makes an Joseph;
unsuccessful attem
an Iṣlāḥīʾs (ii) the emergence of the translation movement and authorship; (iii) and introduction of
Keywords:
Academic Editor: Qurʾān;
Roberto Qurʾānic
Tottoli exegesis; Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī; Zulaykhā; Pot
grants his2021,
Religions prayer. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
12, x FOR PEER REVIEW This Qurʾānic passage
Egyptian (verses
noblewomen 30–34)—indeed, women the whole
in the of
city,the sūra—raises,
very
2 of 8 likely her be-
peers, ridicule he
12:31. 1. The Problem Stated paper and papermaking sides tothe theissues
Muslim empire (see
of interpretation of the Bloom has2011,
incident of the
gone p.women’s
677).
astray” However,
cutting
(innā fīeven
of their
la-narāhā ḍalālin mubīnin
by the authors. This Qurʾānic passageSubmitted
Article (versesfor possible
30–34)—indeed, open access
the whole of the
Citation: Mir, Mustansir. 2021. Why sūra—raises,
Received: be-
24 May 2021
ible open access In sides
Sūra 12,
the which
issues oftells the storyafter
publication
interpretation of of
under writing
Joseph, verses
the terms and
the incident gained
con- 23–29considerable
relate
hands,how
of the Noblewomen
women’s aCut
number
cutting importance
theAccepted:
wife of
ofoftheir
27
the
general in the third/ninth
July 2021and specific issues. (verses 3 But century
our
30–34) 2:particular as point
a workable
of in-
xxxx
e terms and con- Why Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut Their Hands? Amīn
ditions
hands, a number of generalmeans
of (Potiphar
the Creative Commons
and specific to of
Did the Egyptian
the
conserve
issues.
At-
Bible)—following
3 But our
Their Hands? and
Amīn
terest,
convey totradition,
which
Iṣlāḥīʾs knowledge,
particular
Aḥsan point wewe
Published: ofwill will
9in-
August 12
confine our discussion,
2021audition retained is, Why
Zulaykhā its did the women
position
arranges a as cut
the
banquet,their
most
to which she inv
2. Traditional
tribution (CC BY)
ve Commons At- call her Zulaykhā—makes an unsuccessful attempt to seduce
license (http://crea-Muslim Interpretation him,
hands theofcut
whereupon
with Qurʾān
knives some that12:31
Zulaykhā had provided them? each guest a knife;
terest, to which we will confine our discussion, is, Why did the women their she hands
to Tottoli
reliable vehicle
hands with the knives that ZulaykhāThe
ense (http://crea- women in the city, very likely her peers, ridicule
hadgenerally
her,
provided
to
Interpretation
saying
Religions
diffuse
of Qurʾān
accepted Qur
12:31.
that “It answer
12: x.them?
ān
is clear to
and
tous
1. H
The
thethat
Publisher’s
adı̄th
Problem
˙question
she MDPI
Note:
sciences,
just
Stated
posed
stays
and as
neu- is that Joseph
a literary
the women medium. A hybrid
were before the women;
is Joseph,
presented
enses/by/4.0/). has gone astray” (innā la-narāhā fī culture ḍalālin
“stunned emerged
mubīnin by his
[verse which
[Joseph’s]
30]). 1 Acombined
beauty.”
series of the
According
events
tral spoken
with
In
follow Sūra
to
regard word
some
to
12, with
which
interpreters,
jurisdictional written
tells the
the texts
story
women,
the women
of in a general
dazzled
areofstunned
milieu
verses 23–29 of how the
relate
by Joseph’s beauty,
traditic
Egyptian high official called ꜤAzīz (Potiphar the Bible)—following
(verses 30–34) :Mir
Mustansir 2 teaching
by Joseph’s andbeauty,
learning. thought Scholarsthat they attended
werein using
claims
call
published
her
study
knives
maps and
Zulaykhā—makes
circles
toinstitu-
cut someandfood
an
sessions
Joseph
unsuccessful
(h
item,islike . alqāt
not fruit,
aattempt
mortal majālis)
andhuman
to butof
seduce an angel;
him, whereu
1 Zulaykhā arranges a banquet, notable but accidentally
to which informants
she invites cut
Academicthose their
and
Editor: women; hands.
sought
Roberto TottoliOthers
their tionalleave the foodtoitem
affiliations.
permission beveryout and simply
allowed to write
Zulaykhā, say that
down thethe
feeling knowledge
vindicated before
women, awestruck by Joseph’s beauty, women
cut their inhands.
the city,But the likely her
difference peers, ridicule
between the her, saying that “It the wome
is clear to
she hands each guest a knife;Youngstown they received from
State University, them,
Youngstown, which
OH 44555,they would
USA; mmir@ysu.edu then use to pass her wish
such or be imprisoned
knowledge and
down humiliated;
to
PI stays neu-
Religions 2021, 12, x.
two https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx
positions is
Received: only
24 May one
2021 of detail, both has gone astray”
representing the (innā
same la-narāhā
essential ḍalālinwww.mdpi.com/journal/religions
fī interpretation,
mubīnin [verse 30]). A series of ev
1
Joseph is presented before the women; Joseph prays toKnownGod for protection
others.
namely, Audition
that the came
women’s towww.mdpi.com/journal/religions
be
cuttingcritically
of story
their associated
(verses
hands 30–34)
was an
2:with manuscript
involuntary act on culture. as wijāda,against the
urisdictional
the women are stunned by Joseph’s Abstract: beauty,
Sūra 12 Accepted:
ofcut
the their27 July 2021
Qurʾān, hands,
Joseph, andtellsexclaim
the that
of the prophet Joseph. He is bought grantsas their
a his
slave part, a
prayer.
s and institu-
Joseph is not a mortal humanbybut transcribing
an anposition
angel;high
Egyptian aofficial,
accepted written
Published: 9by most
August
whose text was nevertheless
2021classical
wife—tradition and callsZulaykhā
modern,
Copyright: her
© 2021
viewed
Sunnī arranges
Zulaykhā—makes asa the
and ShīꜤī,
by the authors.
least
banquet,
mufassirūn
an totrustworthy
unsuccessful whichat- she
(“Qurʾānic
This Qurʾānic
invitesof those
the eight
women;
passage (verses 30–34)—indeed,
exegetes”),
traditional such
methods as the offollowing:
obtaining and she hands
transferring each guest
knowledge a knife; (collectively
Zulaykhā, feeling vindicatedtempt before to the women,
seduce him, and saysisthat Joseph
ridiculed
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-
bywill
her either
peers
Submitted doher
for failure open
for possible to do so. She invites
access sides themthetoissues
a of interpretation as
referred to of the inciden
her wish or be imprisoned and humiliated; ꜤAbdallāh ibn ꜤAbbās (d. 686–7). (Ibn Joseph
ꜤAbbās isUpon
1987, presented
p. 196); Abūbefore the
l-Ḥajjāj women;
Mujāhid
.turuq tah.ammul al-regardilm),to as it involved no personal contact between master of and student
banquet, hands them knives, and presents Josephpublication
before under
them. the terms and con-
seeing him, thehands,
women a number
cut general and specific issue
tral with jurisdictional
Joseph prays to God for protection againstibn Jabr
withthe al-Qurashī
women’s (d. and
machinations, 722) (Mujāhid
ditions
and God theCreative
2005,
of12:31).
the women
p, 117).
CommonsareAbū stunned
l-Ḥasan
At-the byMuqātil
Joseph’s beauty, cut their hands, and exclai
ibn
their
(seehandsGoldziher the knives
claims1971,
they
in published ii, are
188;
maps
holding
Robinson
institu-
(Qurʾān 2003, According
p. 176; to
Schoeler terest,
generally
2006, to which
accepted
pp. 29–30; we Hassim
will confine our discussion
2010,
grants his prayer. Sulaymān (d. 767) (Muqātil 2003,tribution
2:147); Joseph
(CC BY)
Abū
so because they were so awestruck by Joseph’s beauty that hands
is
license not
JaꜤfar a mortal
(http://crea-
Muḥammad human ibn but an
Jarīr angel;
al-
exegetical view, they tionaldoaffiliations. they did with
not the knives that Zulaykhā had prov
Zulaykhā, feeling vindicated before the women, says that Joseph will eit
what Ṭabarī (d. 923) (Ṭabarī tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
the authors. This Qurʾānic passage (versesknow 30–34)—indeed, they were thedoing
whole and the1909,
ofaccidentally 12:122);
sūra—raises,cut their Abūbe-handsl-Laythwhile al-Samarqandī
thinking that they (d. 983)
were(Samar-
cutting
open access sides the issues of interpretation of the qandī
incident 1993,of 2:159–160);
the women’s Abū
cuttingIsḥāq of their her wish(d.or1035)
al-ThaꜤlabī be imprisoned
(Tha‘labī and
2004, humiliated;
3:372);
some food item, like fruit. Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī differs from this view. He argues that the women
rms and con- hands, a number of general wished and specific Maḥmūd
to succeedissues. 3 But
where ꜤUmar
ibnZulaykhā al-Zamakhsharī
our particular had failed,pointand, of in- (d.Joseph
unable 1144) prays
to persuade
to God forn.d.,
(Zamakhsharī protection against
Joseph in the2:253.); beginning, Ibn the women’s machinations, an
ommons At-
terest, to which we will confine ꜤAṭiyya al-Andalusī (d. 1147) (Ibn ꜤAṭiyya grants 2007, his prayer.
3:239); Abū ꜤAlī al-Faḍl ibn al-
theyour discussion,
threatened to killis,themselves
Why did the women
if Joseph cut their
would not listen to them, and, to convince Joseph that
e (http://crea-
hands with the knives that Zulaykhā Ḥasan
had Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
al-Ṭabarsī
provided them? (d. 1153) (Ṭabarsī 2006, This
5:307);Qurʾānic
Abū passage
l-Faraj ꜤAbd (verses
al-Raḥmān30–34)—indeed,
ibn the whole of the sūra—rais
they were serious in carrying out the threat, they deliberately cut their hands with knives. This ar-
es/by/4.0/). Submitted for possible open access Religions 2021, sides
ꜤAlī ibn al-Jawzī (d. 1200) (Ibn al-Jawzī 2002, 4:167); Fakhr al-Dīn Abū ꜤAbdallāh the
12, x. issues of interpretation
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx of the incident of the women’s cutting o
Religions 2022, 13, 179 9 of 19
Article
Why Did
p. 163;the Egyptian
Ayyad Noblewomen
2019, pp. 99–100, 122–23). In thisCut Theirit isHands?
connection, interestingAmīn
to know that
the 1924 ‘official’ Egyptian edition of the Qur ān was not assembled by checking extant
Article manuscripts against one another, but on the testimony drawn from audition as well as
Mustansirthe
Mirliterature of readings (ParetArticle 1986). It was usually books which were checked against
Why Didmemories, the Egyptian and not the Noblewomen
other way round. Cut Their Hands? Amīn
Article
Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs TheInterpretation
oral/aural Youngstown learning of
State University, Why
oftheQurʾān QurDid
Youngstown, ān OH the
is12:31
deeply
44555, USA; Egyptian
rooted
mmir@ysu.edu in the Noblewomen
Muslims’ perception Cut The
of their holy book as a recital inAḥsan Noblewomen Cut
Iṣlāḥīʾs Their Hands? Amīn
tells the storyInterpretation
is the literal meaning of theof
of the prophet Joseph. He is boughtQurʾān
Arabic, which term Qur ān, 12:31
Abstract: Sūra 12 of the Qurʾān, Joseph, as a slave
AḥsanMirIṣlāḥīʾs
Mustansir rather than Interpretation
a written volume (see of theQurʾānQur ān, 12:31
12. 2; 20.
by an Egyptian high official, whose wife—tradition calls her Zulaykhā—makes an unsuccessful 113. See also Jones 2003, pp. 587–93; at-
Reichl 2011, p. 23). temptWhile to seduce thehim, first andverses
Mustansiris ridiculed of the
Mir by her Revelation
peers for herspecifically failure to do so. highlighted
She invites them thetorole a
Mustansir Mir of the penYoungstown (andbanquet,
subsequently
State University,
hands them writing)
Youngstown,
knives, and OHaspresents
a divine
44555, USA;Joseph gift
mmir@ysu.edu
before to them.teachUpon humans, seeing him, ‘acoustic’
the womenverbs cut
are commonly used their hands when withreferring
the knives they to how are holdingthe divine (Qurʾān Youngstown
12:31). According
wisdom of the
State to Revelation
University,the generally
Youngstown, accepted
isOH to 44555,
be USA; mmi
Abstract: Sūra 12 of
exegetical the Qurʾān,
view, they do Joseph,
so tells the
because they story
were of so
theawestruck
prophet Joseph. by He is bought
Joseph’s beauty as
thata slave
they did not
conveyed by and
Youngstownreceived.
an Egyptian This
State University,
highthey official, is in
Youngstown,recognitionOH 44555, USA; of its oral
mmir@ysu.edu composition style and its initial
know what werewhose doingwife—tradition
and accidentally calls
cut her
their Zulaykhā—makes
hands while
Abstract: Sūra 12an
thinking of unsuccessful
the that they were
Qurʾān, at- cutting
Joseph, tells the story of the
audiences’tempt oraltoculture.
seduce
some food him,Therefore,
item,andlike fruit.recitation
is ridiculed Amīn by Aḥsan
her peerscameIṣlāḥīforto herbefailure
differs ‘the
from backbone
tothisdoview.
so. She He of Muslim
invites
argues them
that toeducation’
the a women
Abstract: Sūra 12 of the Qurʾān, Joseph, tells the story of the prophet Joseph. He is bought as a slavewife—tradition
by an Egyptian high official, whose calls he
(Bloom 2011, by an p.Egyptian
banquet, 671;
hands
wished Sahin
them
to
high succeed2018,
knives,
official, where p. 4).
and
whose
presents
Zulaykhā Even
wife—tradition hadafter
Joseph failed, paper
before
calls
them.
and, and
unable
temptUpon
her Zulaykhā—makes papermaking
toseeing
seducehim,
persuade anJoseph
him, the
and were
women
in
unsuccessful theintroduced
cut
beginning,
is ridiculed
at- by her peers for he
Religions 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW their hands with the knives they are holding (Qurʾān 12:31). According to the generally2 accepted of 8
to the Muslim tempt to world
they
seduce in
him,the
threatened andtosecond/eighth
kill themselves
is ridiculed by if Joseph
her century,
peers would
for hernot orality
listentotodo
banquet,
failure and so. memorization
them,
hands and,
them
She toknives,
invitesconvince
them astillthat
Joseph
andto presents hadJoseph before t
exegetical theyview,were they do
serious soin because
carrying they
out were
the so
threat, awestruck
they by
deliberately
theirJoseph’s
handscut beauty
their
with hands
thethat they
with
knives did not
knives.
they are This ar-
their own banquet, centralhands place them in knives,
Islamic andlearning
presents Joseph culture. before Havingthem. Uponbeen seeingthoughthim, the women of ascut a built-in(Qurʾān 12:3
holding
know what ticlethey
gives were doing
details and accidentally
of Iṣlāḥīʾs interpretation cut their
of thehandsQurʾānic while thinking
verse
exegetical inview, that
question theythey dowere
and cuttinghow
discusses
so because theythatwere so awestru
register, their
memory hands waswith the
normally knives they
(even are holding (Qurʾān 12:31). According to the generally accepted
some food
2. Traditional
exegetical
item,
Muslim
interpretation
view,
like fruit.
theyInterpretation
calls
do sofor
Amīn Aḥsan
re-evaluating
because ofifQurʾān
they
surprisingly)
Iṣlāḥī
weresome differs
so12:31
crucial from
awestruck
more
this
aspects know
by
view.
of the
Joseph’s
trusted
what He argues
Qurʾānic
they
beauty
than
were that scripts,
story
thatdoing
theJoseph.
of
they
women
and
which at
did accidentally
not cut their hand
that time were wished habitually
to succeed where
The generally prone Zulaykhā to wear hadthe and
failed, and,tear. unable For example,
tosomepersuade thatJoseph
food item,memorized in the
like fruit. knowledge
beginning,
Amīn Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī differs from
know what they accepted were doinganswer to
and accidentally question
cut their just hands posed
whileisthinking the that womenthey were
were cutting
cannot“stunned be they
stolen.
some
threatened
by
food When
Keywords:
his [Joseph’s]
item, a fruit.
to kill
like burglar
themselves
Qurʾān; Amīnbroke
Qurʾānic
beauty.” ifAccording
Joseph
exegesis;
Aḥsan intowould
Iṣlāḥī toal-Ghazālı̄’s
Iṣlāḥī; not
Amīn
some
differs
listen towished
Aḥsan
interpreters,
from this
them,house,
Iṣlāḥī;
view.
and,
He
tothe
Joseph;
tothesucceed convince
women,
argues latter
Zulaykhā;
where
thatdazzledbegged
Joseph
the
that him
Potiphar’s
Zulaykhā
women had wife; to and, unab
failed,
take whatever they were
by Joseph’s serious
Egyptian
he would
beauty, in carrying
noblewomen
wish
thought that out
for the were
but
they threat,
his they deliberately
books,
using knives yet the
to cut
cut
they their
thief
some hands
came
food
threatened withup
item,
to killknives.
with
like This
the
fruit,
themselves ar-
rejoinder:
if Joseph would not liste
wished to succeed where Zulaykhā had failed, and, unable to persuade Joseph in the beginning,
ticle gives details
but Why
accidentally cut of Iṣlāḥīʾs interpretation of thethe Qurʾānic versethey in question and discusses how that
Citation: Mir, Mustansir. 2021.
‘How can you
they claim
threatened tototheir
know
kill hands.
themselves these Others
if books
Joseph leave when
would food
not by item
listen toout
taking them, and
were them,simply
and,serious I
to convincesay
in
deprive that
carrying the
Joseph out
you theof
that threat,
their they deliberat
women,interpretation
awestruck calls byforJoseph’s
re-evaluating beauty, some cut crucial
their aspects
hands.ofBut theticleQurʾānic
thetheir story ofof
difference
gives details Joseph.
between
Iṣlāḥīʾs the
Did the Egyptian Noblewomen
contents?’
Cut
they
Havingwere serious
takeninthis carrying out
unfortunate the threat, they deliberately
incident as a divine cut hands
lesson, with knives.interpretation
al-Ghazālı̄ Thisdecided
ar- of the Qurʾānic v
to
Their Hands? Amīn Aḥsantwo Iṣlāḥīʾs
positions is onlyofone of detail, both representing
ticle gives details Iṣlāḥīʾs interpretation of the Qurʾānicthe versesame essential
interpretation
in question and interpretation,
calls for re-evaluating
discusses how that some crucial aspects o
Interpretation memorize
of Qurʾān 12:31.
namely, all of
Keywords:
that 1.his
The
the writings,
Qurʾān; Problem
women’s Qurʾānic a
Stated
cutting task
exegesis;
of that
their reportedly
Iṣlāḥī; Amīnwas
hands Aḥsan an took
Iṣlāḥī; him
involuntaryJoseph;three Zulaykhā;
act on yearstheir (see
Potiphar’s
part, aBloom
wife; 2011,
interpretation calls for re-evaluating some crucial aspects of the Qurʾānic story of Joseph.
p. 675; position Egyptian
Makdisi noblewomen
1981, Inp. 100).
Religions 12: x.
accepted by
Sūra most 12, classical
which tells andthe modern,
story of SunnīJoseph, andverses ShīꜤī, mufassirūn
Keywords: 23–29 relate(“Qurʾānic
Qurʾān; Qurʾānic
how the exegesis;
wife of Iṣlāḥī;
the Amīn Aḥsan I
Citation: Mir, Mustansir. 2021. Why exegetes”), Egyptian
In addition,Keywords: such as the
memorized
Qurʾān; following:
high
Qurʾānicofficialknowledge
calledIṣlāḥī;
exegesis; ꜤAzīz was
Amīn usually
(Potiphar
Aḥsan of the
Iṣlāḥī;Egyptian
deemed noblewomen
Bible)—following
Joseph; to bePotiphar’s
Zulaykhā; oftradition,
special wife;we quality.
will
Their Hands?Academic It Iṣlāḥīʾs
Editor:
Amīn Aḥsan
is reported
Roberto
Egyptianofcall
TottoliꜤAbdallāh
herꜤAbbās
ibn
noblewomen
Mus . in
Zulaykhā—makes
ab Citation: (Ibn
b. (d.al-Zubayr
686–7). Mir, anMustansir.
(d.unsuccessful
ꜤAbbās 2021.
1987,
72/691) Whyp.attempt
to2 have
196); ofAbū 8 to l-Ḥajjāj
seduce‘the
said him,finest
Mujāhid whereupon knowledge some
Citation: Mir, Mustansir. 2021. Why ibn Jabr womenal-Qurashī the (d.city,722) very
Did the likely
Egyptian
(Mujāhid her peers,
Noblewomen
2005, p,ridicule
Cut
117). Abū her,l-Ḥasan
saying that Muqātil “It isibn clear to us that she
Interpretation of Qurʾān is what is 1.taken
12:31. The Problemfrom scholars’ Stated mouths, for they [normally] memorize the best of what
Did the Egyptian
Received: Noblewomen
24 May 2021Cut Sulaymān has gone (d. 767) astray”
(Muqātil (innā
Their la-narāhā
2003, 2:147);ḍalālin
Hands? AmīnfīAḥsan
Abū mubīnin
Iṣlāḥīʾs
JaꜤfar Muḥammad[verse 30]). 1 A series of events follow
ibn Jarīr al-
they hear and say [i.e., promulgate] the best of what they memorize’ the wife of the Minhāj,
(al-Ghazālı̄,
Religions 12: x.
Their Hands?
2. Traditional Amīn 27
Accepted: Aḥsan
July Iṣlāḥīʾs
Muslim 2021 InterpretationṬabarīIn (verses
Sūra
(d. 923)
of 12, which
30–34)
(Ṭabarī
Qurʾān
2: tells the story of Joseph, verses 23–29
12:31
Interpretation of Qurʾān
1909, 12:122); Abū l-Layth al-Samarqandī 12:31. 1. Therelate Problem
(d. 983)how(Samar-Stated
Interpretation of Qurʾān p. 87;
12:31. 2021al-Zarn 1. ūjı̄,1993,
Egyptian
The
qandī p. 123).
high
Problem official
Stated
2:159–160); With called
Abū this ꜤAzīz
Religions
a ethos,
Isḥāq
12: x.(Potiphar thewhich
al-ThaꜤlabī most
of the
(d. she highly
Bible)—following
1035) In
(Tha‘labī admired
Sūra2004, scholars
tradition,
12, which 3:372); we the
tells were
willstory those
of Joseph, vers
Published:
The 9 August
generally accepted answer to Zulaykhā
the question arranges
just posed banquet,is thattothe
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx women invites
were those women;
call her Zulaykhā—makes an unsuccessful attempt to seduce him, whereupon some
with
Tottoli well-stocked ꜤUmar
memories and thesharp recall, whereas those relatewith how mediocre the wife of ꜤAzīz ability of of the
Religions 12: x. Maḥmūd ibn al-Zamakhsharī (d. 1144) (Zamakhsharī Egyptian n.d., high official
2:253.); Ibn called (Potiphar
Academic
“stunned Editor:byRoberto
his [Joseph’s] beauty.” In Sūra she
According 12,handswhich
to each
some tells guest a knife;
story
interpreters, of Joseph,
the women, verses 23–29
dazzled the
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays women
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx ꜤAṭiyya in the
al-Andalusī city, is very(d. likely
1147) her
(Ibn peers,
ꜤAṭiyya ridicule
2007, her,
3:239); saying call
Abū that
ꜤAlī
her “It is clear
Zulaykhā—makes
al-Faḍl ibn toal-us thatan sheunsuccessful attemp
toꜤAzīz
neu- Joseph presented before the women;
by Joseph’s beauty, knowledge
thought Egyptian
has
preservation
that they were
gone
high using
astray”
were
official
(innā
knives downgraded
called Academic
la-narāhā
cutEditor: (Potiphar
some
fī ḍalālin
(see
food
Roberto
mubīnin
ofHassim
item,
Tottoli thelike
[verse
2010,
Bible)—following
fruit,
30]).
pp. 162–63; tradition,Boyle
1 A series of events follow
we will 2006). In
Received: tral
24 May
but accidentally
with
2021regard to jurisdictional
cut their hands. Ḥasan
call her al-Ṭabarsī
Others the
Zulaykhā—makes
leave (d.
women the1153) are(Ṭabarsī
food stunned out2006,
an tendency
item by
unsuccessful 5:307);
andJoseph’s
simply Abū
attemptbeauty,
say towomen
l-Faraj
that cut ꜤAbd
seduce
the their in the city,
al-Raḥmān
hands,
him, very
and
whereupon ibn likely
exclaim some her
thatpeers, ridicule her,
Academic Editor: Roberto medieval
Tottoli Arab-Islamic
(verses ibn30–34)
2 culture,
: (d.is1200) the to trust memory over script was so popular
Accepted: claims
27 Julyin2021 ꜤAlī beauty, isꜤAbdallāh that she fī ḍalālin mubīnin [v
published maps and institu- has gone astray” (innā
women, awestruck by Joseph’s women al-Jawzī
in Joseph
thecutcity, theirverynot a(Ibn
mortal
likely
hands. al-Jawzī
her
But
Received: human
the
24peers,
May 2002,but4:167);
ridicule
difference
2021 an between
angel;
her, Fakhr
saying al-Dīn
the that Abū “It clear to usla-narāhā
tional
Published: 9 August 2021 in
affiliations. certain scholastic
Muḥammad
Zulaykhā milieus
ibn ꜤUmar
arranges
Zulaykhā, that
(innāfeelingaal-Rāzī it
banquet, passed
(d. 1210)
fī27to which
ḍalālin
down
(Rāzī she into
1938,
invites an
18:126–127);
thoseestablished
(verses women;30–34)
Abū 2 idea,
ꜤAbdallāh
: of events which was also
24 May 2021is only one ofhas
two positions
Received: gone
detail, bothastray” representing thevindicated
la-narāhā
Accepted:same essential
July 2021 before
mubīnin the women,
[verse
interpretation, 30]). says1 A that
series Joseph will either
followdo
13
namely, that theintermittently
women’s cutting (verses expressed
Muḥammad
she hands
of30–34)
their ibn
herhands
2 each
:wish in or proverbs
Aḥmad
guest
was be an a knife;
imprisoned
Published: and
al-Qurṭubī
involuntary9 August poems.
and (d.
2021 1272)
humiliated;
act on their An part,old Arabic
(Qurṭubī 1967,
aZulaykhā aphorism
arranges astates:
9:179–180); banquet, ‘atoletter
which she invit
the Egyptian Noblewomen Accepted:
position
Published:
27 July 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays
accepted
9 August 2021 in Cut
your
by
neu-
most
Their
heart ꜤAbdallāh
Joseph
[i.e.,
classical and
Zulaykhā
Hands?
ibn
Joseph
memory] ꜤUmar
ismodern,
presented
arrangespraysis Amīn
before
al-Bayḍāwī
to
more
Sunnīa God
and
banquet,
thefor
useful women;
(d.
ShīꜤī,to
1286)
protection
than
mufassirūn
which
(Bayḍāwī
a
she against
thousand 1968,
the
(“Qurʾānic
invites those
1:493);
women’s
[letters]
shewomen;
Abū
hands in Ḥayyān
machinations,
your
each guest and
records God
a knife; (h. arf un fı̄
exegetes”), such as the al-Gharnāṭī
following: the women
un (d.in1344)
grants arehis (Abū
stunned
prayer. Ḥayyān
by Joseph’s
Publisher’s 1992,
Note: MDPI 6:267–269);
beauty,
stays neu-cut their ꜤImād hands,al-Dīn
Joseph and
isIsmāꜤīl
exclaim
presented ibn thatbefore the women;
āḥīʾs Interpretation of
claims in published
Publisher’s
Qurʾān
Copyright:
mapsta
Note: MDPI
andm
© 2021 the12:31
ūrik
institu-
staysbyneu-
khayr
Kathīr
authors.
shemin
Joseph
Joseph
hands
(d. 1373)
alfeach
is not(Ibn
This
is ꜤAbbās
fı̄ dust
guestūrik)’
Kathīr
a mortal
Qurʾānic
presented
a knife;
1983,
human
passage
tral
before
(al-Jı̄t
with4:23–24);
the
but
(verses
regard
women;
ālı̄,
.an i, 103)—also,
Burhān
toangel;
30–34)—indeed,
jurisdictionalal-Dīn Abū
inl-Ḥasan
thethe
modern
whole women ofibn theare
Egyptian
ꜤUmar
sūra—raises,
stunned bybe-
vernacular:
Joseph’s beauty, cut
ꜤAbdallāh
tional affiliations. ibn
‘al- ꜤAbbās
ilm (d.
fi-l-rās686–7).
mish (Ibn
fi-l-kurrās’. 1987, p. 196);
Verses in Abūthis l-Ḥajjāj
regard Mujāhidinclude:
Submitted for possible
tral with regard to jurisdictional open al-BiqāꜤī
access Zulaykhā,(d.sides
1480) (BiqāꜤī
feeling
the issues 2003,
vindicated
claims 4:34–35);
in beforeMuḥammad
published
of interpretation the of
maps women,
and institu- ibn
the incident says ꜤAlī that ibn
of the
Joseph Muḥammad
Josephwomen’s willaeither
is not al- dohuman
cutting
mortal of theirbut an angel;
ibn the women are stunned by Joseph’s beauty, cut their hands, and exclaim that
Jabr al-Qurashī (d. 722) (Mujāhid 2005, p, 117). tionalAbū l-Ḥasan Muqātil ibn
publication
Sulaymān
ditions of
maps
the
¯@ I.JºÊË
under
Aê¯Q®K HA
claims in published the
and institu-
(d. 767)
Creative
Shawkānī
terms and con-

(Muqātil
Commons àA
At-
1854)
her wish
¯Joseph J» ú¯ ©Ò m.Ì '@ àð X ¡®m Ì 'AK. ½JÊ«
(d. 1834)
or
hands,
2003, 2:147);
I
Joseph prays
(Ᾱlūsī,
(Shawkānī
be imprisoned
is not aaAbū
number
mortal ofaffiliations.
human
JaꜤfar
1996,
and
general
Muḥammad
to God forRashīḍ
13:229–230); protection
3:26); Abū
humiliated;
but anand
angel;
l-Thanāʾ
specific issues.Maḥmūd
ibn Jarīr al-
Riḍāagainst the women’s
(d. 1935)
3 But oural-Ᾱlūsī
(Rashīḍ machinations,
(d.vindicated
particular
Zulaykhā, feeling point of in-before
and God
Riḍā n.d., 12:293);
the women,
Ṭabarī (d. 923) (Ṭabarī 1909, 12:122);
Zulaykhā, terest,
Abū
to
feeling
l-Layth
.
which
we willbefore
vindicated
al-Samarqandī
confine the
(d.
our discussion,
women,
983) (Samar-
is,her
says thatWhy didor
wish
Joseph the
bewomen
will either cut their
imprisoned
do and humiliated;
tribution (CC BY) license (http://crea-
Youngstown State University, Youngstown,
qandī 1993, 44555, USA; Muḥammad
OH2:159–160); grants his
mmir@ysu.edu
Abūher wish
Isḥāq
Thanāʾullāh
prayer.
hands
or be with
al-ThaꜤlabī imprisoned
al-Maẓharī
the knives
(d. 1035) and that al-Pānīpatī
Zulaykhā
humiliated;
(Tha‘labī
had(d.
2004, 3:372);
1810)Joseph
provided (Thanāʾullāh
them? al- for protection against the w
prays to God
Pānīpatī
This 2007,
© 2021 by the authors.

Copyright:tivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Qurʾānic 4:24); Abū Muḥammad
passage
(verses
ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq

30–34)—indeed,
Haqqānī
the (d.the
wholegrants
of 1911) (Ḥaqqānī
sūra—raises,
his prayer. be-
Maḥmūd ibn ꜤUmar ÊJoseph
Aê¯Qåal-Zamakhsharī
Abstract: Sūra 12 of the Qurʾān, Joseph, tells the story ofn.d.,
Submitted for possible open access m'(d.P Ato1144)
Ë@ð Aê¯Qprays ®Ë@God
thesides
4:262);
prophet
¯Qform'protection
ð Aê(Zamakhsharī
theMuḥammad
issuesHe
Joseph.
¯Qagainst
PAJË@ð Aên.d.,
of is ZAÜthe
interpretation
al-Ṭāhir
Ï A¯ women’s
ªK 2:253.);
Copyright:ibn
bought
Ibn
ꜤᾹshūr
of
machinations, and God
the incident
(d. 1973)of(Ibn the ꜤᾹshūr
women’s cutting
1984,
This Qurʾānic of their(verses 30–34)—indeed, th
12:263);
passage
3:239); as a©slave
2021 by the authors.
ꜤAṭiyya
under theal-Andalusī
terms and con- (d. Ashraf
1147) grants his
(Ibn ꜤAṭiyya prayer.2007, Abū ꜤAlī al-Faḍl ibn3 al-
publication hands,ꜤAlī Thānawī
a number (d.
of 1943)
general (Thānawī
and 1935,
specific 5:78);
issues. Muḥammad
But our ShafīꜤ
particular (d. 1976)
point ofinterpretation
in-
ibnwholesides inthe issues of latter are of the incident
by an Egyptian high official, whose wife—tradition calls herThis
Zulaykhā—makes Submitted
an unsuccessful for possible open access
at-compile information
ditions ofḤasan CommonsYou would rather 2006,learn
Qurʾānic by
passage heart
(verses than
30–34)—indeed,
ꜤAbd al-Raḥmānthe of the books;
sūra—raises,the be-
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
al-Ṭabarsī (d.
the Creative At- 1153) (Ṭabarsī 5:307); Abū l-Faraj
tempt to seduce him,Submitted
and isꜤAlī
ridiculed
for possibleby her peers for herterest,
(Muḥammadfailure totowhich
ShafīꜤ
do so. we
1990,
She will confine
5:50);
publication
invites Abū
them our
l-AꜤlā
under
to discussion,
the
a terms and con-is,(d.
Mawdūdī Why did
1979) the women
(Mawdūdī
hands, a number cutof
1949– their
general and specific issues.3
ibn open
al-Jawzī access
(d.
prone1200) (Ibnsides
to them. the
al-Jawzī
damage. issues
2002,
Water of interpretation
4:167);
may Fakhr
4 drown al-Dīn of the
them,Abū incident
ꜤAbdallāh
fire of the women’s
mayal-Ṭabāṭabāʾī
burn them, cutting
rats of
may their
gnaw at
1972a, hands 1949–1972b,
withseeing
the knives2:397); that
ditions Muḥammad
Zulaykhā
of the Creative had Ḥusayn
provided
Commons At- them? (d. 1982)
banquet, hands themtivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
knives,
publication and
underpresents
Muḥammad the terms and
Religions 2021, 12, ibnJoseph
con- before
x. ꜤUmar al-Rāzī (d.Upon
hands, a number
1210)
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx (Rāzīhim,of
1938, the
general women and cut
18:126–127); specific issues.3 But ourterest,
Abū ꜤAbdallāh to which
particular weofwill
point in- confine our discussion, is
their hands with the ditions
knivesofMuḥammad
they are holding
the Creative them
Commons(QurʾānAt- and
12:31). thieves
(Ṭabāṭabāʾī According2002,
terest, to which
mayto thesteal
12:149). generallythem.
accepted is, Why did the women cut theirthat Zulaykhā had provid
hands with the knives
ibn Aḥmad al-Qurṭubī (d. we 1272)will confine our
(Qurṭubī discussion,
1967, 9:179–180);
exegetical view, theytribution (CC BY) license
do so ꜤAbdallāh
because they (http://crea-
were so This
awestruck is
bynot an
Joseph’s exhaustive

beauty that
ibn ꜤUmar al-Bayḍāwī (d. 1286) (Bayḍāwī 1968, 1:493); Abū Ḥayyān
hands with the knives list
of
they
that the
did
Zulaykhā mufassirūn
not had who
provided subscribe
them? to the above-stated
know what they weretivecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
doingal-Gharnāṭī
and accidentally (d. 1344) theirPYË@ è@ñk AÓ B @ ÕÎªË @ AÓ Q¢ Ò® Ë@ ø ñk AÓ ÕÎªK. Ë
cutstandard hands
(Abū interpretation
while thinking
Ḥayyān ofthat
verse
1992, 6:267–269); they31 of
were sūra
ꜤImādcutting12. It isIsmāꜤīl
al-Dīn a fairlyibn representative list, though, and
some food item, like fruit. Amīn KathīrAḥsan(d. 1373) Iṣlāḥī(Ibn should
differs from
Kathīr suffice to show
this4:23–24);
1983, view. that
He Burhān
arguesthethat
saidthe
al-Dīn interpretation
women
Abū l-Ḥasan ibn has ꜤUmar
practically the whole weight of the
wished to succeed where Zulaykhā
Religions 2021, 12, had
al-BiqāꜤī x.(d. failed,
1480) Knowledge
exegetical
and,
(BiqāꜤīunable
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx to ispersuade
2003,tradition not behind
4:34–35); whatJoseph
Muḥammad a in
it. bookcase
theibnbeginning,
ꜤAlī ibnmay contain;al-
Muḥammad it is what is kept in one’s chest.
they threatened to kill themselves if Joseph would not listen
to
Shawkānī (d. 1834) (Shawkānī 1996, 3:26); Abū l-Thanāʾ them, and, to convince Joseph that
Maḥmūd al-Ᾱlūsī (d.
they were serious in carrying out the
1854) threat,13:229–230);
(Ᾱlūsī, £ @Q® Ë@ ÕÎªË @ ¨ Xñ J Ó K. ð éªJ¯ AA £Q ¯ ÕÎªË @ ¨ Xñ J@
they3.deliberately
Iṣlāḥī’s Interpretation
Rashīḍcut their
Riḍāhands
Religions 2021,
with knives.
(d. 1935) (Rashīḍ ThisRiḍā
ar- n.d., 12:293);
Religions 2021, 12, x. https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx www.mdpi.com/journal/religions
ticle gives details of Iṣlāḥīʾs interpretation of
Muḥammad the Qurʾānic
Thanāʾullāh Theverse
Pakistani Qurʾānic
in question
al-Maẓharī exegete,
and discusses
al-Pānīpatī (d. Amīn
how
1810)that Aḥsan Iṣlāḥī (d.al-
(Thanāʾullāh 1418/1997), in his multivolume
interpretation calls for re-evaluating some He
crucial Urduwho
aspects entrusts
Qurʾānic
of the Qurʾānic knowledge
commentary,
story
Pānīpatī 2007, 4:24); Abū Muḥammad ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq Haqqānī (d. 1911) (Ḥaqqānī of Joseph. to
Tadabbur-i parchments
Qurʾān would
(“Reflection be
on wasting
the Qurʾān”), it. Verily
differs parch-
from—or
ments
n.d., 4:262); Muḥammad arerather,
al-Ṭāhir ibnrejects—the
an ill-advised aforestated
ꜤᾹshūr (d.reservoir
1973) interpretation
for
(Ibn ꜤᾹshūrknowledge. and presents his own understand-
1984, 12:263);
Keywords: Qurʾān; QurʾānicAshraf
exegesis;
ꜤAlīIṣlāḥī; Amīn
ThānawīingAḥsan
(d. theIṣlāḥī;
of1943) verse Joseph;
(IṣlāḥīZulaykhā;
(Thānawī Potiphar’s
2001–2002,
1935, 5:78); wife;Here,
4:208–210).
Muḥammad following,
ShafīꜤ (d. 1976) is his argument step by step:

Egyptian noblewomen (Muḥammad ShafīꜤ1.1990, In5:50);
verseAbū ©®JK B I.JºÊË ½ªÒ m.¯ AJ« @ð A¢¯ Ag á ºK ÕË @ X@
l-AꜤlā
30, the Mawdūdī
women, (d. 1979)
criticizing (Mawdūdī
Zulaykhā, innā la-narāha fī ḍalālin mubīnin “It
say: 1949–
2021. Why 1972a, 1949–1972b, 2:397); Muḥammad Ḥusayn al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī
4
is clear to us that she has gone astray!” This(d.statement, 1982) says Iṣlāḥī, combines the
omen Cut (Ṭabāṭabāʾī 2002, 12:149). elements of malāma, shamāta, and iddiꜤāʾ,5 that is, of reproach, malicious pleasure or
n Iṣlāḥīʾs
This is not an exhaustive schadenfreude, and boastful
list of the mufassirūn whoclaim, respectively:
subscribe reproach, in that it is quite strange,
to the above-stated
2:31. 1. The Problem Stated in their
standard interpretation of verse 31 ofview, that
sūra 12. the
It is wife of
a fairly a high-ranking
representative list, official
though,should
and fall in love with her
In Sūra 12, which tellssuffice
should the story of Joseph,
to show that theverses
said 23–29
slave—and relate how
stranger
interpretation hasthe
still, thatwife
sheofshould
practically the whole
the fail to makeofhim
weight the do her wish; malicious
xxx
exegetical (Potiphar
tradition behindofit.the Bible)—following
pleasure, tradition,
in that she, like them a we will
noblewoman, should suffer defeat at the hands of a
Religions 2022, 13, 179 10 of 19

¨ Xñ J Ó I.JºË@ ú¯ ùÒÊ« ð úæÊm.× ú¯ Éê m.Ì 'AK. QåReligions
k @ @ 2021, 12, x FOR2PEER
of 8 REVIEW
If you
Religions 2021, do
12, xnot know
FOR PEER knowledge
Religions
REVIEW byPEER
heart and
understand it, then your collection of
2021, 12, x FOR REVIEW 2 of 8
2. Traditional Muslim
books is Interpretation
of no use. Why of Qurʾān
should12:31
I attend 2. Traditional Muslim Interpretat
gatherings, with2021,
ignorance in [academic]
Religions 2021, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Religions 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW
The generally
whileaccepted answer to is
my knowledge thereserved
question just posed is(al-Jı̄t
in books? that the women were The generally
1976, accepted answ
. ālı̄, i, pp. 103–4; al-Abrāshı̄
“stunned by his [Joseph’s] beauty.” According to some interpreters, the women, dazzled “stunned by his [Joseph’s] beauty.
p. 197; Makdisi 1981,2.pp. Traditional
101–2) Muslim Interpretation
2. Traditionalof Muslim
QurʾānInterpretation
by Joseph’s beauty, thought that they were using knives to cut some food item, like fruit,
12:31 of Qurʾān 12:31
by Joseph’s beauty, thought that th
but accidentally Thethe generally2. Traditional accepted Muslim
answer
The Interpretation
generallytosay thethat question
acceptedthe 2. ofjust
Traditional
Qurʾān
answer
butposed to12:31is
theMuslim
that questioncutInterpretation
the women justhands. posed
wereO i
Thecut last their
versehands. Others leave
combines “stunned both by
food
memorization item
his [Joseph’s]
out and
“stunned and
beauty.”
simply understanding.
by According
his [Joseph’s] to somebeauty.”In accidentally
medieval
interpreters, According the Islamic
to
women,some
their
interprete
dazzled
women, awestruck by Joseph’s beauty,
Religions 2021, cut their
12,contrasted hands.
x FOR PEER REVIEW
The
But generally
the difference accepted between answer the to the The
women,question generally just
awestruck accepted
posed by is answer
that
Joseph’s the beto w
culture, memorization
two positions is only one of detail, both
was by Joseph’s
representing beauty,
“stunned with
the thought
same by writing
byhis Joseph’s
that
essential they
[Joseph’s] (based
beauty,
were
interpretation,beauty.” on
using
thought howknives
Accordingthat
“stunned knowledge
two tothey cut bywere
to some
positionssome
his [Joseph’s] is toitem,
using
food
interpreters,
is only knivesbe like
beauty.”
one to
the
of fruit,
cut wom
detai so
Ac
preserved), not reasoning (based
but
namely, that the women’s cutting of their hands was an involuntary act on their part, a on
accidentally how
by cut it
Joseph’s is
their to but be
hands.
beauty, processed)
accidentallyOthers
thought leave
cut
that as theirin
the
they today’s
food
hands.
by
were item
Joseph’s learning
Others out and
leave
namely, that the women’s cuttingw
using knives
beauty, culture.
simply
to the
thought
cut food say
some item
thatthat
food out
theythe ite
position Inaccepted
other words, by mostmemorization
classical and women,
modern, was awestruck
thought
but accidentally
Sunnī and byof Joseph’s
ShīꜤī,women,
as mufassirūn
acut beauty,
mental awestruck
their hands. cut their
receptacle
(“Qurʾānic byOthers Joseph’s
hands.
butfor leave beauty,
But
knowledge,
accidentally
position the thefood cut
difference
accepted cuttheir
item not
theirby hands.
out between
aandBut
hands.
most simplythe
Other
classica the
two positions is
women, only 2. Traditional
one two
awestruck of positions
detail, byMuslimboth is
Joseph’s onlyInterpretation
representing one
beauty, of
women, detail,
cutthe of same
their Qurʾān
both
awestruck essential
hands. 12:31
representingBut
by interpretation,
Joseph’s
the the
difference same
beauty
exegetes”),waysuch as the following:
of dealing with it. There was a stark distinction in the Muslim learning exegetes”), culture such betweenas the following:
namely, that the twop. women’s
positions namely,
The cutting
generally that
ofone their
the ofwomen’s
accepted hands
detail,answer was cuttingan toinvoluntary
of
thetheir is hands
question actsame on
justwas their
posedan involun
part,
is tha ain
ꜤAbdallāh
ReligionsReligions
2021, 12,
riwāyat xibn
2021,FOR
al- 12,ꜤAbbās
PEER
x FORREVIEW
ilm, (d. 686–7).
PEER REVIEW(Ibn of
‘transmission ꜤAbbās 1987,
knowledge’, 196); which Abūisl-Ḥajjāj only
is the Mujāhid
task of the
both
two
fool,
representing
positions
and ꜤAbdallāh
dirāyat
only
the ibn
al-
one ofof
ꜤAbbās
2ilm, essential
8 2detail,
(d.
of 8686– bo
position accepted by most
“stunned position
classical
by accepted
his and
[Joseph’s] modern,by most
beauty.” Sunnīclassical and
According and
ShīꜤī, modern,
mufassirūn
to some Sunnī (“Qurʾānic
interpreters, and ShīꜤ th
ibn Jabr Article
al-Qurashī (d. 722) (Mujāhid 14 2005, p, namely,
Article 117). Abū thatl-Ḥasan the women’s Muqātilcutting ibn of their namely, hands that
ibnwas the an
Jabr women’s
involuntary
al-Qurashī cutting(d. act 722) ofon t(
‘assessment of
Sulaymān (d. 767) (Muqātil Religions
knowledge’, exegetes”),
2003, 2:147);
which Abū
such is
position
JaꜤfar
the
as bytask
the following:
accepted
Muḥammad
of
exegetes”),
Joseph’s perceptive
beauty,
by ibn
such
most Jarīr
as the
thought
classical
al-
scholars—according
following:
thatand they
positionmodern, were accepted
Sulaymān
using
Sunnī by
and to
knives
(d. most one to classical
ShīꜤī,
767)
cut somean
mufassirū
(Muqātil
fo
2
h.adı̄th and(Ṭabarī a saying Why Did the Egyptian
by WhyNoblewomen
Did the Egyptian
Cut Their
ꜤAbdallāh Noblewomen
Hands? Amīn
2021, 12, x FOR PEER but Cut T
ibn ꜤAbbās
exegetes”), REVIEW
such(d. ꜤAbdallāh
accidentally as the
686–7). cut
following:
(Ibn their
ibn ꜤAbbās
ꜤAbbās
hands. (d.Others
exegetes”),
1987, 686–7).
p. 196); leave such
(Ibn
Abū 15the ꜤAbbās
as food
the also
l-Ḥajjāj item
following:
1987,
Mujāhid p.out 196); andAs
Ṭabarī (d. 923) 1909, 2.the
12:122);
2. Traditional Companion
Abū
Traditional l-Layth
Muslim Muslim al-Samarqandī
Interpretation Abd
Interpretation
women,
Allāh of(d. b.
983)
Qurʾān of Mas
(Samar-
Qurʾān12:31 ūd12:31 (d. 32/653). Ṭabarī (d.This 923) (Ṭabarī 1909, 12
ibn Jabr (d. al-Qurashī ꜤAbdallāh (d. awestruck
722)
ibnꜤAbbās Jabr
(Mujāhid by
al-Qurashī Joseph’s
2005, p, (d. beauty,
117).
722) ꜤAbbās Abū cut1987,
(Mujāhid
ꜤAbdallāh their
l-Ḥasan hands.
2005, Muqātil
ꜤAbbās p, AbūBut
117).
(d. ibn the Abū diffe
Abūl-(M
relates
qandī
Maḥmūd
1993,to2:159–160);
classical Abū Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation
distinction
ꜤUmar al-Zamakhsharī latter
ibn(memorizers)—the
Isḥāq al-ThaꜤlabī
The generally of Qurʾān
Interpretation
TheSulaymān 12:31
between
generally
(d. 1144)
of Qurʾān 12:
accepted the
(d.
1035)
accepted
ibn
(Zamakhsharī
so-called
answer
two
767)
(Tha‘labī
Jabr
answer
positions
(Muqātil
ibn
al-Qurashī
theulamā
toSulaymān
2004,
to
isquestion
2003,
n.d., 2:253.);
only (d.
(d.al-shams
3:372);
the 2:147); question
(d.one
686–7).
722)
Ibn
just
767) ofAbū posed
(Ibn
detail,
(Muqātil
(Mujāhid
(readers)
justJaꜤfar posed
isboth
ibn
that
qandī
2003, is
Muḥammad
2005, Jabr
the and
that
representing
Maḥmūd p,
ibn
1993,
women
2:147);
al-Qurashī
117).
p. 196);
theulamā
2:159–160);
women
Abū
ibn
ibn ꜤUmar
Abū
were
the Jarīr
(d. same
JaꜤfar
l-Ḥasan
686–7).
l-Ḥajjāj
were
722)al- essen
Muḥam
al-Zama (Muj
Muq
Article al-qamar “stunned “stunned by his by
Ṭabarī [Joseph’s]
his(d.tradition
[Joseph’s]
923) beauty.”
namely,
(Ṭabarī enabled
beauty.” According
2. Traditional
1909, Ṭabarī
that themany
According
12:122); to
women’s
(d. some
Muslim
923)
Abū blind
to some
(Ṭabarīcutting scholars
interpreters, interpreters,
Interpretation
l-Layth ofSulaymān
their theto women,
hands
of flourish
the
Qurʾān women,
was dazzled
12:31 indazzled
an(Muqātil
involuntary
ꜤAṭiyya al-Andalusī (d. 1147) (Ibn ꜤAṭiyya 2007, 3:239); Sulaymān Abū ꜤAlī (d. 767)
al-Faḍl (Muqātil
ibn al- 2003,1909, al-Samarqandī
2:147); 12:122);
ꜤAṭiyya
Abū Abū
JaꜤfar
(d.(d. l-Layth
983)
767)Muḥammad
al-Andalusī (Samar-
al-Samarqan
(d. 1147) 2003
ibn
Islamic Mustansir civilizations.
Mir by Joseph’s
Ḥasan al-Ṭabarsī (d. 1153) (Ṭabarsī 2006,
He who
by Joseph’s beauty,
qandī memorized
beauty,
thought
Mustansir
1993, thought
Abū2:159–160);
that
Ṭabarī what
Mir
position they
thataccepted
ꜤAbd
he
were
they
Abū
qandī did
using
were
Isḥāq
1993, by notusing
knives
most understand
al-ThaꜤlabī
2:159–160); knives
to cut
classical (d.tosome
Abū cutIsḥāq
and
1035)
Ṭabarī was
some
food
modern,
Ḥasan(Tha‘labī commonly
item,
food
al-ThaꜤlabī like
item,
Sunnī2004, fruit,
like
and
(d.
3:372); fruit,
ShīꜤī,
1035) mu
(Th
Why Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut Their Hands? Amīn ꜤAlīderided
ibn al-Jawzī as a(d.‘donkey’ but accidentally
1200) (Ibn al-Jawzī
but accidentally
carrying
5:307);
Maḥmūd
2002,
cut
valuabletheir
cut
4:167); ibn
l-Faraj (d.
hands.
theirꜤUmar hands.
exegetes”),
volumes
qandī
Fakhr
Others
1993,
“stunned
al-Dīn
923)
The
Others
such
al-Zamakhsharī
(Ṭabarī
generally
al-Raḥmān
leaveasleave
(ka-mathali-l-h
Maḥmūd byꜤAbdallāh
2:159–160);
Abū
the
his the
ibn
1909,ibn
food the
ꜤUmar
12:122);
accepted
following:
(d.
Abū
[Joseph’s]
item
food
1144)
. imāri
Isḥāq
out
item
beauty.”
Abū
answer
and
yah
al-Zamakhsharī
(Zamakhsharī out
al-ThaꜤlabī
qandī .
l-Layth
milu
ꜤAlī
to
simply
(d.the
1993,
According ibn
923)
al-Samarqandī
and asfārā)—as
simply
(d.n.d.,
(d.
(Ṭabarī
question
al-Ṭabarsī
say1144) thatsaythe
to2:253.);
2:159–160);
1035)
al-Jawzī some
1909,
just
(d.
thatIbn
(Zamakhsha
(Tha‘labī
(d.
(d.12:122
posed
1153)
the
Abū 2004
interprete
1200)
983)
(Ṭa
Isḥā
(Ibn
is
women, women, awestruck awestruck
ꜤAṭiyya byal-Andalusī
Joseph’s
by Joseph’sbeauty,
ꜤAbdallāh
(d. beauty,
cut(Ibn
ꜤAṭiyya
1147) their cut hands.
their
ꜤAṭiyya
ꜤAbbās
al-Andalusī hands.
But
2007,(d. the But
3:239);
1147) difference
the(Ibn
Abū difference
ꜤAbbāsꜤAṭiyya
ꜤAlī between
al-Faḍl between
2007, the
ibn
3:239); the
al- Abū
Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31 stated byibn
Muḥammad theꜤUmar Qural-Rāzī ān (62. (d.5. See
Youngstown
1210) also
(Rāzī al-Jı̄t
State
1938, . ālı̄,
Maḥmūd
University,
18:126–127); i,
by p. ibn 104;
Joseph’s
Youngstown,
Abū ꜤUmar ibn
al-
ꜤAbdallāh
beauty,OH Āmilı̄,
al-Zamakhsharī
Youngstown
44555, (d.
thought p.686–7).
USA; 267;
that
State
mmir@ysu.edu (Ibn
al-Ghazzı̄,
Maḥmūd
(d.
they
University, 1144) were
Muḥammad ibn ꜤUmar
1987,
(Zamakhsharī
using
Youngstown, p. p.OH
269).
knives
ibn 196);
ꜤUmar
al-Zamakhsh Abū
n.d.,
to
44555, cutUSA;
al-Rāz2:25l-Ḥ
som m
two positions
two positions is only
Ḥasan is one
onlyofone
al-Ṭabarsī detail,
(d.ofibn detail,
1153) both Ḥasan representing
both
(Ṭabarsī representing
al-Ṭabarsī 2006, the
5:307);
(d.(Ibn same
1153)the
Abū same
essential
(Ṭabarsī
l-Faraj essential
ꜤAbdinterpretation,
2006, interpretation,
al-Raḥmān
5:307); Abū ibn
l-Faraj ꜤA
Muḥammad
Encouraging adherents ibn Aḥmad al-Qurṭubī
and (d. 1272) ꜤAṭiyya
(Qurṭubī but Jabr
al-Andalusī
accidentally
1967, al-Qurashī
9:179–180); (d. cut 1147) (d.
their 722)hands. ꜤAṭiyya ꜤAṭiyya
(Mujāhid Others 2007,
Muḥammad 2005,
al-Andalusī
leave p,
3:239); the117).Abū
food
ibn (d.Abū ꜤAlī
1147)
item
Aḥmad l-Ḥasan
al-Faḍ(Ibn
out al a
namely, namely,thatdisciples
the
thatwomen’s
ꜤAlī the
ibn
to understand
women’s
al-Jawzī12cutting (d.cutting of their
1200) ꜤAlī of
(Ibn
properly
hands
their
ibn al-Jawzī
(d.al-Jawzī hands
was the an
2002, was
(d.
wisdom
involuntary
anthe
4:167);
1200) involuntary
(Ibn
Fakhr
embedded
act
al-Jawzī onact
al-Dīn their
2002,on
Abū
inpart,
theirtheapart,
ꜤAbdallāh
4:167); Fakhr aa slaval-
ꜤAbdallāh ibn ꜤUmar al-Bayḍāwī (d.Abstract: 1286) Sūra
(Bayḍāwī Ḥasan
of1968,
the Sulaymān
Qurʾān,
al-Ṭabarsī
women,
1:493); Joseph,
awestruck
Abū 767)
tells
Ḥayyān
1153)Abstract:
the (Muqātil
story
(Ṭabarsī
by Sūra
of
Joseph’s 2003,
12
2006, Ḥasan
prophet
of the
beauty, 2:147);
Qurʾān,
ꜤAbdallāh
5:307); Joseph.
al-Ṭabarsī
Abū
cut Abū Joseph,
theirHe JaꜤfar
l-Faraj
ibn (d.is tells
ꜤUmar
hands. ꜤAbd
bought
1153)Muḥammad
the as
story
(Ṭabars
But al-Raḥm
al-Bayḍā the of
Mustansir Mir knowledge they would position disseminate,
positionaccepted accepted
Muḥammad by the
most by Prophet
most
classical
ibn
ꜤAlī ꜤUmar classical
Ṭabarī and pointed
al-Rāzī modern,
Muḥammad
(d. and 923)(d. modern,out Sunnī
1210)
(Ṭabarī ibn that Sunnī
and
ꜤUmar
(Rāzī
1909, an1938, attentive
ShīꜤī,
and
al-Rāzī
12:122); ShīꜤī,
mufassirūn
18:126–127);
ꜤAlī (d.
Abū recipient
mufassirūn
1210)
l-Layth (“Qurʾānic
Abū
(Rāzī of
(“Qurʾānic
ꜤAbdallāh
1938,
al-Samarqandī 18:126–1 ꜤA
(d
al-Gharnāṭī (d. 1344) (Abū Ḥayyān 1992, 6:267–269); ꜤImād al-Dīn IsmāꜤīl ibn
by an Egyptian high official,
ibn two whose
al-Jawzī
positions wife—tradition
(d. 1200)
is by only an(Ibn Egyptian
one calls
al-Jawzī
of her
high
detail, Zulaykhā—makes
2002,official,
ibn
both 4:167); whose
al-Jawzī
al-Gharnāṭī Fakhr
representing (d. 1344) (Abū Ḥae
wife—tradition
an unsuccessful
1200)
al-Dīn the (Ibn
Abū
same cal
al-J
knowledge might exegetes”),
be1983,moreexegetes”), such
aware as
Muḥammadsuch
tothe
of asfollowing:
its the ibnfollowing:
purport Aḥmad thanMuḥammad the
al-Qurṭubī informant ibn (d. to Aḥmad
1272) would (Qurṭubī
al-Qurṭubībe (al-Bukhārı̄,
1967, (d. 9:179–180);
1272) (Qurṭubī
Kathīr (d. 1373) (Ibn Kathīr 4:23–24);tempt Burhān seduce him,
al-DīnMuḥammad and
Abū qandī
namely,isl-Ḥasan 1993,
ridiculed
ibn that ꜤUmar
ibn 2:159–160);
by
the tempt
her
ꜤUmar al-Rāzī
women’s peers Abū
seduce
for
(d. herIsḥāq
1210)
cutting him,
failure
Muḥammad al-ThaꜤlabī
(Rāzīand
ofKathīr to1938,
their is do ridiculed
hands
(d. so.
ibn ꜤUmar
(d.
She
18:126–127);
1373) was 1035)
by
invites
(Ibn her
an (Tha‘lab
peers
al-Rāzī them
Abū 19
involun
Kathīr ꜤA
for
to
(d.
Kitāb al-fitan,
Youngstown Stateal-BiqāꜤī
University, Youngstown, bāb OHqawl 44555, ꜤAbdallāh
al-nabı̄
USA;
(d. 1480) (BiqāꜤī 2003, 4:34–35); Muḥammad Muḥammad lā ꜤAbdallāh
ꜤAbdallāh ibn
tarji
mmir@ysu.edu
banquet, ꜤAbbās
ūibn
ba
hands ꜤAbbās
ibn (d.
dı̄
them ꜤUmar
686–7).
(d.
kuffārā,
ibn ꜤAlī Maḥmūd
knives, 686–7).
8 ꜤAbdallāh
al-Bayḍāwī
(Ibn [h
and ꜤAbbās
(Ibn
adı̄th
ibn
presents ꜤAbbās
ꜤUmar
(d.
no. ibn 1286)
1987,
banquet,
Joseph ꜤUmar
7078]). (Bayḍāwī
1987,
p. 196);
al-Zamakhsharī
before
hands al-Bayḍāwī
p. Abū
196);
According
them
them. 1968,
l-Ḥajjāj
Abū
knives,
Upon (d.
(d. 1:493);
to1286)
l-Ḥajjāj
Mujāhid
1144)
seeing
and the Abū (Bayḍāwī
Mujāhid
early Ḥayyān
(Zamakhsharī
presents
him, the Joseph
women1968, n.d
befo c1
position
ibn Muḥammad .ibn accepted Aḥmad by
al- mostal-Qurṭubī classical Muḥammad
(d.al-BiqāꜤī
and 1272) modern, (Qurṭubī
(d.ibn 1480) Aḥmad
Sunnī 1967,
(BiqāꜤī and al-Qu 9:1
ShīꜤī
2003,
ibn Jabr
ibntheiral-Gharnāṭī
al-Qurashī
Jabr hands al-Qurashī
with (d.
(d. the 1344)
722)
ꜤAbdallāhknivesꜤAṭiyya
(d.Maḥmūd (Abū
(Mujāhid
722)
exegetes”),they
ibn Ḥayyān
al-Gharnāṭī
(Mujāhid
ꜤUmar 2005,
al-Andalusī
are holding
such 1992,
(d.
2005,
p,
their
al-Bayḍāwī
as the 1344)
117).
(d.
(Qurʾānp,
hands 6:267–269);
Abū
117).
1147)
following:(Abū
with
(d. l-Ḥasan
Abū
(Ibn
12:31). Ḥayyān
ꜤAbdallāh
the
1286) ꜤImād
ꜤAṭiyya
l-Ḥasan
According
knives Muqātil
(Bayḍāwī al-Dīn
1992, Muqātil
2007,
they
ibn to 6:267–269);
ibn
ꜤUmar
are
the IsmāꜤīl
3:239);
1968, holding ibn
generally
1:493); ibn
Abū
al-Bayḍāwī ꜤImād
(Qurʾān ꜤAlī
accepte
Abū
historian Ibn Qutayba al-Dı̄nawarı̄ (d. 276/889), the phases of learning are five: silence,
Shawkānī (d. 1834) (Shawkānī 1996, 3:26); Abū l-Thanāʾ al-Ᾱlūsī (d. Shawkānī (d. 1834) (Shawkān
Abstract: Sūra 12 of the(Ᾱlūsī,
1854) Qurʾān,13:229–230);
Joseph, tells theRashīḍ Sulaymān
story ofSulaymān
the Kathīr
exegetical
Riḍā (d.
(d. 767)
prophet (d.
(d.
view,
1935) 1373)
(Muqātil
Joseph.767)they (Ibndo
al-Gharnāṭī
(Rashīḍ isḤasan
(Muqātil
He Kathīr
2003,
bought
so Riḍā Kathīr
because 1983,
2003,
2:147);
as
al-Ṭabarsī
(d. n.d., (d.
athey
1344) 4:23–24);
2:147);
slave Abū1373)(d.ꜤAbbās
exegetical
were
(Abū
12:293); (Ibn
JaꜤfar
Abū Burhān
soḤayyān
1153) Kathīr
JaꜤfar
Muḥammad
(Ṭabarsī
awestruck
view, al-Dīn
they
1992,1983,
Muḥammad
by 2006,
al-Gharnāṭīdo Abū4:23–24);
ibn
Joseph’s
so l-Ḥasan
Jarīr
5:307);
6:267–269);
1854) because ibn
beauty
(d.
(Ᾱlūsī, Burhān
al- ibn
Jarīr
ꜤImād
Abū they
1344) ꜤUmar
al-al-Dīn
l-Faraj
that were
(Abū
13:229–230); they
al-Dīn ꜤAbd
so Abū
Ḥayyā
didawe
IsmRana
listening, memorization, understanding and(BiqāꜤī ꜤAbdallāh
dissemination. ibn Abd (d. 686–7).
Allāh b.(d. (Ibn
al-Mubārak ꜤAbbās 1987, (d. p. 196); Ab
by an Egyptian Muḥammad
high official, whose wife—tradition
Thanāʾullāh Ṭabarī
al-Maẓharī calls Ṭabarī
(d.
her
know al-BiqāꜤī
923) (d.(Ṭabarī
what
al-Pānīpatī 923)
Zulaykhā—makes (d.(Ṭabarī
they 1480)
1909,
were
Kathīr
(d. ꜤAlī
12:122);
1909,
an
doing
1810) (d. and2003,
al-BiqāꜤī
12:122);
unsuccessful
ibn
1373) Abū
al-Jawzī4:34–35);
accidentally
(Thanāʾullāh (Ibn (d.
l-Layth
Abū at- 1480)
(d.
know
Kathīr Muḥammad
l-Layth
cut
al- (BiqāꜤī
al-Samarqandī
1200)what
1983,their they
hands 2003,
al-Samarqandī
(Ibn
4:23–24); were ibn
al-Jawzī while
Kathīr ꜤAlī
4:34–35);
doing
Burhān 983)
Muḥammad2002,ibn
(d.
thinking
(d. and
1373) Muḥammad
Muḥammad
(Samar-
983)
4:167);
al-Dīn (Samar-
accidentally
that
(Ibn Fakhr
they
Abū Kathīr
Thanāʾullāh wereal-
ibn
al-Dīn
cut
l-Ḥasan ꜤAlī
their
1983,cuttinibn
al- 4A
ibn Jabr al-Qurashī (d. 722) (Mujāhid 2005, p, 117). Abū l-Ḥ
tempt to seducePānīpatī 181/797)
him, and2007, had
is ridiculed put
4:24); Abū by forward
herMuḥammadqandī
peers foraqandī
more
1993,
her
some Shawkānī
ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq
foodsensible
1993,
2:159–160);
failure to
item, (d.like
2:159–160);
do so. progression:
1834)
Abū
Haqqānī She
al-BiqāꜤīfruit. (Shawkānī
Isḥāq
Abū
invites
Muḥammad
(d.
Amīn
(d. Shawkānī
Isḥāq
al-ThaꜤlabī
1480)them
1911) Aḥsan intention,
1996,
al-ThaꜤlabī
to Iṣlāḥī
ibn
(BiqāꜤī
(Ḥaqqānī ꜤUmar
a(d.
some 3:26);
1834)
(d.
2003, 1035)
differs
food listening,
Abū(Shawkānī
(d.
al-Rāzī
4:34–35);
item,
froml-Thanāʾ
1035)
(Tha‘labī
(d.
likethis 1210)
al-BiqāꜤī
Muḥammad understanding,
1996,
(Tha‘labī
fruit. Maḥmūd
2004,
view.
Pānīpatī (Rāzī
(d.
Amīn 3:26);
He 2004,
3:372);
1480) 1938,
ibn
argues
2007, al-Ᾱlūsī
AḥsanAbū3:372);
ꜤAlī
(BiqāꜤī l-Thanāʾ
18:126–127);
4:24);thatibn
Iṣlāḥī (d.
2003,
the
Abū Muḥam
differs
wome
Muḥ Ma
4:34 A
Sulaymān (d. 767) (Muqātil 2003, 2:147); Abū JaꜤfar Muḥam
banquet, hands n.d., memorization,
them knives, and practice,
presents Joseph and
Maḥmūdbefore
4:262); Muḥammad al-Ṭāhir ibn ꜤᾹshūr (d. 1973) (Ibn ꜤᾹshūr dissemination
Maḥmūd 1854)
ibn
them.
wished ꜤUmar
(Ᾱlūsī,
ibn
Upon
to succeed ꜤUmar
seeing (al-Abrāshı̄
13:229–230);
al-Zamakhsharī
Shawkānī
where al-Zamakhsharī
him, Muḥammadthe
Zulaykhā 1854)
(d. Rashīḍ
women
1834)(d. 1976,
(Ᾱlūsī,
had 1144)
cut
ibn Riḍā
(d.
(Shawkānī
failed,
wishedpp.
1144)
Aḥmad and,196–97).
13:229–230);
(d.
(Zamakhsharī
to 1935)
(Zamakhsharī
1996, al-Qurṭubī
succeed
unable 3:26); As
(Rashīḍ
Rashīḍ
n.d.,
Shawkānī
to
where such,
Abū
persuade Riḍā
2:253.);
n.d.,
(d. (d.
Zulaykhā learning
1272)
l-Thanāʾ (d.
n.d.,
2:253.);
Ibn
1834)
Joseph had 1935)
12:293);
Ibn
(Qurṭubī
Maḥmūd
(Shawkānī
in failed,
the (Rashīḍ
beginnin
and, 1967
al-Ᾱ
19 u
Ṭabarī 1984, (d.12:263);923) (Ṭabarī 1909, 12:122); n.d., Abū 4:262); Muḥammad
l-Layth al-Samarqan al-Ṭā
their hands withAshraf the
byknives they are holding
ꜤAlī should
rote not ꜤAṭiyya
(Qurʾān
conflict ꜤAṭiyya
12:31).
with Muḥammad
al-Andalusī al-Andalusī
According
reasoning 5:78);(d. Thanāʾullāh
to 1147)
1854) the
and(d. ꜤAbdallāh
1147)
(Ibn
generally
reflection
(Ᾱlūsī, ꜤAṭiyya
Muḥammad
al-Maẓharī
(Ibn accepted
ifibn ꜤAṭiyya
13:229–230); inꜤUmar
2007, the Thanāʾullāh
al-Pānīpatī
2007,
3:239);
al-Bayḍāwī
classical
Rashīḍ 3:239);
Abū ꜤAlī
(d.
al-Maẓharī
Abū(d.
Islamic
to1854)
Riḍā 1810)
(d. ꜤAlī
al-Faḍl
1286)
(Ᾱlūsī,
1935) (Thanāʾullāh
al-Pānīpatī
al-Faḍl
ibn
(Bayḍāwī
ꜤAlī
paradigm,
(Rashīḍal- ibn 1968,
13:229–230); al-would(d.
al-Rashīḍ1810
1:493)
Thānawī (d. 1943) (Thānawī they threatened
1935, to kill
Muḥammad themselves ShafīꜤ
qandī Joseph
(d.
1993, they
1976) would threatened
2:159–160); not listen
Abū kill
to them,
themselves
Ashraf
Isḥāq and,
al-ThaꜤlabī to if convince
Joseph
Thānawī (d.Riḍā Joseph
(d.
1035) n.d.,
1943) not
(Th th
exegetical view,(Muḥammad
they do so because ShafīꜤ they
1990, were 5:50); Ḥasan
so Abū Ḥasan
awestruck they Pānīpatī
al-Ṭabarsī
l-AꜤlā al-Ṭabarsī
by
were Joseph’s
Mawdūdī 2007,
(d.
serious 1153) 4:24);
(d.
beauty
Muḥammad
in
(d. 1153)
(Ṭabarsī
carrying
1979) Abū
that Pānīpatī
Muḥammad
(Ṭabarsī
al-Gharnāṭī out2006,
they
(Mawdūdī did
Thanāʾullāh
the 5:307);
2006,
(d. 2007,
not
threat, 1344)
they
1949– ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq
4:24);
5:307);
Abū
they were(Abū
al-Maẓharī Abū
l-Faraj
Abū
deliberately
seriousḤayyānꜤAbd
Muḥammad
l-Faraj Haqqānī
Muḥammad
in cut ꜤAbd
al-Raḥmān
1992,
al-Pānīpatī
carryingtheir
(Muḥammad (d. ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq
1911)
al-Raḥmān
6:267–269);
hands
out ibn
Thanāʾullāh
(d.
the with (Ḥaqqānī
1810)
threat,
ShafīꜤ ibn ꜤImād
knives. Haqqān
(Thanāʾu
they
1990, al-D
al-Maẓ
This
delib
5:50 a
rather itand should service them. 16 As Boyle (2004, Maḥmūd
p.n.d., 85) puts ibn it: ꜤUmar
‘memorization al-Zamakhsharī was (d. 1144)
the first (Zamakhshar
know what they1972a, were doing 1949–1972b, accidentally
2:397); cut4 ꜤAlī
their ibn
Muḥammad ꜤAlī
hands
ticlen.d.,
al-Jawzī
ibn while
gives 4:262);
al-Jawzī
(d.
Ḥusayn
details Muḥammad
1200)
thinking (d. 1200)
Pānīpatī(IbnKathīr
that
of Iṣlāḥīʾs
al-Ṭabāṭabāʾīal-Jawzī
they (Ibn
2007, al-Ṭāhir
were al-Jawzī
(d.
interpretation 4:262);
2002,
cutting
1373)
4:24); (d. ibn
Abū (Ibn
ticle
of
1982)ꜤᾹshūr
Muḥammad
4:167);
2002, the 4:167);
Kathīr
Muḥammad
gives Fakhr
Qurʾānic (d. 1973)
Fakhr
1983,
details al-Ṭāhir
al-Dīn
verse
of (Ibn
al-Dīn
4:23–24);
Pānīpatī Abū
ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq
Iṣlāḥīʾs
in
1972a, ꜤᾹshūr
ibn
question ꜤᾹshūr
ꜤAbdallāh
Abū
Burhān
2007, ꜤAbdallāh
1984,
Haqqānī
interpretation4:24);
and
1949–1972b, (d.
al-Dīn12:263);
Abū1973)
discusses of (d.Abū
Muḥamm
the (Ibn
1911)
how l-Ḥa
Qurʾān
2:397); ꜤᾹ
4(Ḥ
th
ꜤAṭiyya al-Andalusī (d. 1147) (Ibn ꜤAṭiyya 2007, 3:239); Abū
step
some food item,(Ṭabāṭabāʾī
like inAmīn
fruit. a2002,
lifelong
Aḥsan enterprise
Iṣlāḥī Muḥammad
differs from of
MuḥammadAshraf
thisseeking
ibn ꜤAlī
ꜤUmar
view. ibn He understanding
ꜤUmar
Thānawīal-Rāzī
argues
n.d., (d.(d.1943)
al-Rāzī
al-BiqāꜤī
4:262); that Ashraf
1210)
the(d.
Muḥammad(d.women ꜤAlī
(Thānawī
1210)
(Rāzī
1480) and Thānawī
(Rāzī
1938, thus
(BiqāꜤī 1935,
al-Ṭāhir 1938, knowledge.
(d.
5:78);
18:126–127);
2003, ibn 1943) Muḥammad
18:126–127);
ꜤᾹshūr
4:34–35);
n.d.,for(Thānawī
Abū4:262);
(d. ItMuḥammad
ꜤAbdallāh
Abū
Muḥammad
1973) did
ShafīꜤ
1935, (Ibnofnot
ꜤAbdallāh 5:78);
(d. 1976)
ꜤᾹshūr
ibn ꜤAlī
Muḥamm
al-Ṭāhiribn
1984, M
12:149). interpretation calls for re-evaluating Ḥasan some
al-Ṭabarsī interpretation
crucial (d. aspects
1153) calls
of the
(Ṭabarsī Qurʾānic
re-evaluating
(Ṭabāṭabāʾī
2006, story some
2002,
5:307); Joseph.
Abū crucial
12:149). l-Faraj aspec ꜤA
wished to succeedseek whereto replace
Zulaykhā hadunderstanding
failed, and, Muḥammad Muḥammad
unable with
(Muḥammad
to ibn dogmatism,
persuade Aḥmad ShafīꜤ
ibnAshraf Aḥmad
Joseph 1990,
al-Qurṭubī
ꜤAlī
Shawkānī
in the but
(Muḥammad
5:50);
al-Qurṭubī
beginning,
Thānawī to
(d.Abū
(d. plant
1834)
(d. l-AꜤlā
1272)
(d. ShafīꜤ
1943) the
1272)Mawdūdī
(Qurṭubī
(Shawkānī seeds
1990,
(Thānawī 5:50);
(Qurṭubī (d.that
1967,
1996,
Ashraf1935, Abū
1979) would
1967, l-AꜤlā
(Mawdūdī
9:179–180);
ꜤAlī
3:26);5:78); Abū lead
Mawdūdī
9:179–180);
Thānawī
Muḥammadl-Thanāʾ (d.1949– 1943) (d.
Maḥmū
ShafīꜤ 1979
(Th
This is not an exhaustive list of the mufassirūn who subscribeꜤAlī to 4ibn the al-Jawzīabove-stated (d. 1200) (Ibn4 al-Jawzī This is not 2002,an4:167); exhaustive Fakhr al-D list(
they threatened toto killunderstanding’.
themselves if Joseph would ꜤAbdallāh
not ꜤAbdallāh
listen 1972a,
Keywords:ibn ꜤUmar
to them, ibn ꜤUmar
1949–1972b,
and,
Qurʾān; al-Bayḍāwī
to
(Muḥammadconvince
Qurʾānic 2:397);
al-Bayḍāwī
1854) 1972a,
(d.Joseph
exegesis; 1286)
(Ᾱlūsī,
ShafīꜤ (d. 1949–1972b,
Muḥammad
that1286)
(Bayḍāwī
13:229–230);
1990,
Iṣlāḥī; Keywords: (Bayḍāwī
5:50);
Amīn Ḥusayn
1968,
Abū
Aḥsan 2:397);
Rashīḍ
Qurʾān; 1968,
1:493);
(Muḥammad
l-AꜤlā
Iṣlāḥī; al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī
Muḥammad
1:493);
Riḍā Abū(d.
Mawdūdī Ḥayyān
Abū 1935)
ShafīꜤ
(d. Ḥusayn
Ḥayyān
(d. (Rashīḍ
1979)
1990, 1982) (Mawdūd
5:50);al-Ṭab
Riḍā Ab
standard interpretation of verse 31 of sūra 12. It is a fairly representative list, though, and Muḥammad ibn ꜤUmar al-Rāzīstandard interpretation of versewif
Qurʾānic
Joseph;
(d. 1210) exegesis;
Zulaykhā;
(Rāzī Iṣlāḥī;
1938,Potiphar’sAmīn
18:126–12 Aḥs31
they were serious in carrying out the threat, theyal-Gharnāṭī deliberately (Ṭabāṭabāʾī
al-Gharnāṭī
Egyptian (d. noblewomen
cut 1344)
their 2002,
(d.hands 1344)
(Abū
1972a, withḤayyān
12:149).
(Abū
Muḥammad
knives.Ḥayyān
(Ṭabāṭabāʾī
1949–1972b, 1992,
This 1992, 2002,
6:267–269);
Thanāʾullāh
ar- 2:397);
Egyptian 412:149).
6:267–269); ꜤImād
al-Maẓharī
Muḥammad
noblewomen ꜤImād
al-Dīnal-Dīn
1972a, IsmāꜤīlIsmāꜤīl
Ḥusayn
al-Pānīpatī
1949–1972b, ibn (d.
al-Ṭabāṭabāʾīibn 1810)
2:397); 4 (Th Mu(d
should suffice Despite
to show his that aforementioned
the said interpretation criticism
has practically of paying theMuḥammad
whole utmost weight attention
ibn of the Aḥmad toshould memorization,
al-Qurṭubī suffice (d.
to show
ꜤUmar
1272)
ꜤUmar
as that (Qurṭubī
the said
ticle gives details of Iṣlāḥīʾs interpretation
Citation: Mir, Mustansir. of2021.
theWhy Kathīr Kathīr
Qurʾānic verse (d. 1373)
This (d.in
is 1373)
(Ibn
question
not
Citation:
Kathīr
(Ibn
anMir, and Kathīr
(Ṭabāṭabāʾī1983,
exhaustivePānīpatī
discusses
Mustansir.
4:23–24);
1983,
2002,
This list
ꜤAbdallāh
2021. Why
4:23–24);
2007,
how is Burhān
that
12:149).
of not 4:24);
the ibn an Burhān
al-Dīn
Abū Muḥammad
mufassirūn
exhaustive
ꜤUmar
al-Dīn
Abūwho
al-Bayḍāwī
l-Ḥasan
Abū
(Ṭabāṭabāʾī
list subscribe
of ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq
l-Ḥasan
the
(d.
ibn 2002, ibn
mufassirūn
1286) to the 12:149).
(Bayḍāwī Haqqānī
above-stated
who (d.11
subscr
1968,
exegetical tradition behindal-Jāh it. exegetical tradition one behind it.
interpretation callsan forend in itself,
re-evaluating
Did the Egyptian some crucial. iz acknowledged
al-BiqāꜤī al-BiqāꜤī
(d.the 1480) (d.
Did1480)
(BiqāꜤī that (BiqāꜤīmemorization
2003, 4:34–35);
n.d.,2003, 4:34–35);
4:262); Muḥammad
Muḥammad and
Muḥammad reasoning
ibn ꜤAlī
al-Ṭāhir ibnibn complement
ꜤAlī
ibn ꜤᾹshūr
Muḥammad
ibn Muḥammad (d. al-
1973) al-
(Ibnreprese ꜤᾹshūr
another. Directly
Noblewomen
after ˙aspects
Cut
his
standard of
above
Qurʾānic
interpretation
cited
story
This of
the Egyptian
criticism
of Joseph.
standard
verse
Noblewomen
is not an31
al-Gharnāṭī
of
Cutinterpretation
of
exhaustive
‘perfecting’
sūra (d. 12.1344) It is
list of
of averse
fairly 31
the mufassirūn
(Abū
memorization,
This representative
Ḥayyān ofis sūra
2notof1992,
12.
who It6:267–269);
8an exhaustive
he
list,
is a fairly
subscribe
stated
though, to
list and
ꜤImādtheof
3. Iṣlāḥī’s Interpretation
Shawkānī Shawkānī
should (d. 1834)
suffice (d.
Their to 1834)
(Shawkānī
show
Hands? (Shawkānī
Amīn
standard interpretation Ashraf
thatshould
Aḥsan 1996,
the ꜤAlī
said
Iṣlāḥīʾs
Kathīr (d.
1996,
3:26);
suffice Thānawī 3:26);
Abū
interpretation
to
of1373) show
verse(Ibn
l-Thanāʾ
Abū
(d.
31 of that l-Thanāʾ
1943)
has the
sūra
Maḥmūd
standard
Kathīr (Thānawī
practically
said
3.12.
1983,
Maḥmūd al-Ᾱlūsī
1935,
interpretation
Itinterpretation
Iṣlāḥī’s is the
a fairly
4:23–24);
al-Ᾱlūsī
whole (d.
5:78); has
weight
representative
Burhān
Interpretation
(d.
Muḥammad
of verse practically
al-Dīn of
31Abū of sS
the
list,
that: ‘If the learner 1854)
neglects 1854)
(Ᾱlūsī,The(Ᾱlūsī,
1.contemplation, 13:229–230); 13:229–230); Rashīḍ
meanings
(Muḥammad RashīḍRiḍātradition Riḍā
(d.
wouldShafīꜤ 1935)(d.1990,not1935)
(Rashīḍ it.(Rashīḍ
flow
5:50); Riḍā
Abūsmoothly Riḍā
n.d., Mawdūdī
l-AꜤlā 12:293);
n.d., into 12:293);
his (d.
Keywords: Qurʾān; Qurʾānic exegesis;
Interpretation
The Pakistani Qurʾānic exegete,
Iṣlāḥī;
of Qurʾān Amīn
12:31. Aḥsan
Amīn
exegeticalIṣlāḥī; Joseph;
tradition
Problem
AḥsanThanāʾullāh
Interpretation
should
Iṣlāḥī
Zulaykhā;
(d.
behind
Stated
of Qurʾān
suffice
1418/1997),
Potiphar’s
exegetical
it.12:31.
to show
al-BiqāꜤī
in his
wife;
that(d. 1.
multivolumethe
1480)The behind
said Problem
(BiqāꜤīinterpretation
should 2003, Stated
suffice
Thehas
4:34–35); topractically
Pakistani show
Muḥammad that the1979)
ibnsaid
whole ꜤAlī (M
intiw
Egyptian noblewomen Religions 12: x. Muḥammad Muḥammad Religions Thanāʾullāh
12: x. al-Maẓharī 1972a, al-Maẓharī al-Pānīpatī
1949–1972b, al-Pānīpatī (d. 1810)
2:397); 4(d.Muḥammad1810)
(Thanāʾullāh (Thanāʾullāh Ḥusayn al-Qurʾānic al-al-Ṭabāṭabā
exeget
mind, and
Urdu Qurʾānic if
commentary, he neglects
Tadabbur-i memorization,
Qurʾān In Sūra exegetical
12, which
(“Reflection meanings tradition
on tells Shawkānī
the the would
behind
story(d.
Qurʾān”),
12:31 ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq
it.not
of 1834) Inattach
Joseph,
differs Sūra exegetical
(Shawkānī
verses
12,Urdufirmly
which
23–29 to
tradition
1996, tells
Qurʾānicrelate his
3:26);thebehind
howheart
Abū
story
commentary, the it.wife
l-Thanāʾ
of Joseph, of Ma
Tad thv
2. Traditional Muslim
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx Pānīpatī Interpretation
3.Pānīpatī 2007, 4:24);
Iṣlāḥī’s 2007, of Qurʾān
4:24);
Abū Muḥammad
Abū
Interpretation Muḥammad
(Ṭabāṭabāʾī
3.called
Iṣlāḥī’s 2002,
InterpretationꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq
12:149). Haqqānī Haqqānī (d. 1911) (d. 1911)(Ḥaqqānī (Ḥaqqānī
from—or [here rather,to mean
rejects—the ‘mind’] aforestatedand Egyptian
their sojourn
interpretation highand official
in his
presents chest 1854)
his ꜤAzīz
would
own (Ᾱlūsī, (Potiphar
Egyptian
be
understand- 13:229–230);
momentary ofhigh Rashīḍ
official
from—or [. . . ]. Riḍā
called There
rather, ꜤAzīz
(d.rejects—the
is1935)
tradition,
(Potiphar
no (Rashīḍ we
aforeofwitR
Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut The generally n.d., 4:262);
n.d.,The
accepted 4:262);
Muḥammad
answer Muḥammad al-Ṭāhir
to Qurʾānic
the question
This al-Ṭāhir
ibn
isan ꜤᾹshūr
just
not ibnan posed ꜤᾹshūr
(d.Aḥsan
exhaustive 1973)
is (d.
that 1973)
(Ibn
the
list ꜤᾹshūr
(Ibn
women
of ꜤᾹshūr
1984,
wereAḥsan 1984,
12:263); 12:263);
ing of the verse (Iṣlāḥī 4:208–210). callHere, her Pakistani 3. Iṣlāḥī’s
Zulaykhā—makes
following, is Interpretation
his exegete,
The
Muḥammad
argument Pakistani
Amīn
unsuccessful call Qurʾānic
Thanāʾullāh
her attempt3.exegete,
Iṣlāḥī Iṣlāḥī’s
Zulaykhā—makes (d. tothe
al-Maẓharī
ofseducemufassirūn
Interpretation
1418/1997),
Amīn anin(Iṣlāḥī
his
al-Pānīpatī
him, who
Iṣlāḥī
unsuccessful
whereupon subscribe
multivolume(d.
(d.1418/1 1810)
atte
som 4:t
excellence
Academic [in2001–2002,
Editor:
“stunned learning]
by his Ashraf
Roberto Tottoli without
[Joseph’s] these
ꜤAlībeauty.”
Ashraf ꜤAlī
Thānawī Academictwo
Thānawī (d. skills’
1943)
Editor: (d. (al-Jāh
1943)
(Thānawī
Roberto (Thānawī
Tottoli iz
1935, ,step
.interpreters,pp. by
5:78);
1935, step:
29–30. 5:78);
Muḥammad See ing
Muḥammad also the
Günther
ShafīꜤ verse
ShafīꜤ
(d. 1976) (d.2006, 1976)2001–2002,
in theAccording to some the women, dazzled
Urdu women Qurʾānic city,
The standard
commentary, very Urdu
Pakistani likelyinterpretation
Tadabbur-i
Qurʾānic
Pānīpatī her
Qurʾānic ˙ 2007,
peers, women of
commentary,
Qurʾān
4:24); verse
ridicule
exegete, in 31
the
Amīnher, of
(“Reflection
Abū city, sūra
Tadabbur-i
Muḥammad
saying
The
Aḥsan very 12.on
that
Pakistani It
likely
Iṣlāḥī ꜤAbdu’l-Ḥaqq
is
Qurʾān
the
“It a
(d. fairly
Qurʾān”),
her
is clear
Qurʾānic peers,
1418/1997), representativ
(“Reflection
toexegete,
us differs
Haqqānī
ridicule
that on
sh h
Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31. 1. Inp.
1. The Problem verse
Stated372; 30,2016,
the
by women, p. 75).
Joseph’s criticizing
In(Muḥammad
beauty, this Zulaykhā,
thought connection,
(Muḥammad thatShafīꜤsay:
they innā
ShafīꜤ
1990,
were la-narāha
al-Jāh
1990,
5:50);
using iz (like
5:50);
Abū knives ḍalālin
fī l-AꜤlā
Abū many
to mubīnin
l-AꜤlā
Mawdūdī
cut someother
Mawdūdī “It Muslim
(d.said
food 1979) 1. 1979)
(d.
item, Inscholars
(Mawdūdī
like verse
(Mawdūdī
fruit, 30,
1949– thefrom women, criticm
1949– in his A
from—or
has gone rather,
astray”
Urdu should
rejects—the
(innā
Qurʾānic . suffice
from—or aforestated
n.d.,
la-narāhā commentary,to fī show
rather,
4:262); ḍalālin has that
interpretation
rejects—the
Muḥammad gone the
mubīnin
Tadabbur-i astray”
Urdu interpretation
aforestated
and
al-Ṭāhir
[verseQurʾān presents
(innā30]).
Qurʾānic ibn ꜤᾹshūr
la-narāhā
A
(“Reflection has
1interpretation
his
series own
commentary, (d.
fī ḍalālin
practically
of understand-
1973)
on and
events the (Ibnthe
presen
mubīnin
follo
TadabbuQurʾ ꜤᾹ w
Religions 12: x. is clearReceived:
In Sūra 12, different
to usbut 24
thatMayshe2021 has gone astray!” This
theaccidentally
tells tendencies) 1972a,
cut their
proceeded 1972a,1949–1972b,
hands. to
Received:
statement,
1949–1972b,
Others
advise
24 May 2021
2:397);
leave 4says
2:397);
students the ˙ of4food
Muḥammad Iṣlāḥī,
Muḥammad
on item combines Ḥusayn
out
successful and Ḥusayn
the al-Ṭabāṭabāʾī
simply is
2: say
memorization that clear
histhe (d. to1982)
and us that
(d. 1982)
the she has go
which story of Joseph, verses
ing of
(verses the 23–29
verse
30–34) from—or 2: exegetical
relate
(Iṣlāḥī how ing
July2001–2002,
rather, the tradition
wife
the
Ashraf
rejects—the of
verse
4:208–210).ꜤAlī the behind
(Iṣlāḥī
Thānawī
(verses Here,
aforestated it. following,
2001–2002,
(d.
30–34) 1943) 4:208–210).
is
(Thānawī argument
Here,
1935, following,
stepaforestate
5:78); by
hisstep:
Muḥamm is his
https://doi.org/10.3390/xxxxx elements Accepted: 27 July 2021
of malāma, shamāta, and
(Ṭabāṭabāʾīiddi Ꜥāʾ,5 2002,
(Ṭabāṭabāʾī that Accepted:
is,
2002, of 27
12:149). reproach,
12:149). 2021
malicious pleasure or from—or interpretation rather,
elements rejects—the
and presents
of malāma, shamāta, own
Egyptian high official most called9ꜤAzīz
suitablewomen,
timesawestruck
(Potipharand of by the
ambience Joseph’s
Bible)—following
1. respectively:
In Zulaykhā
verse 30,
beauty,
for study
ingthe of
cut
the and
women,
their
tradition,
verse
1.inathat
hands.
leisure
(Muḥammad
(Iṣlāḥī
criticizing
In verse we But
will
(al-Jāh
30,
2001–2002,
the
Zulaykhā,
the
difference
iz
ShafīꜤ , p.
1990,
4:208–210).
women,
she say: 30. between
See
5:50);
ingcriticizing
of
innā the
Here, also
Abū
verse
la-narāha
the
al-Zarn
l-AꜤlā fī ḍalālin
(Iṣlāḥī
following,
Zulaykhā, Mawdūdī ūjı̄,
issay:his
2001–2002, mubīnin
innā (d.
argument 1979
4:208–
la-nar
“Itin
Published:
schadenfreude, and August 2021
boastfulisclaim, Published: arranges
anreproach,
9 August 2021 banquet, itmufassirūn
is to
quite which .essential
Zulaykhā
strange, invites arrangesthose women;
a banquet,
schadenfreude, to
and which boastful she c
call her Zulaykhā—makestwo positions
an unsuccessful only
This attempt one
is
This notis
of
to detail,
isclear
an not exhaustive
seduce to
both
us him, 3.representing
exhaustive
that list
Iṣlāḥī’s
whereupon
she ofhaslist
the of the
Interpretation
1972a,
is clear
gone the
some same
mufassirūn
1949–1972b,
to
astray!”
us who
that ˙ Thisshesubscribe
who
2:397);interpretation,
statement,
has subscribe to astray!”
4 Muḥammad
gone the
says toabove-stated
theThis
Iṣlāḥī, above-stated
Ḥusayn
combines
statement, al-Ṭab
thesao
Academic Editor: Roberto Tottoli inpp. their100–1;
view,namely, Günther
that thethatwife 2016,
the of a
women’s pp.
high-ranking 85–86).
she
cutting
hands1. Al-Ghazālı̄
official
of
each
In
their verseguest
should
hands 30, a even
knife;
the
fall
was in
anwomen, spoke
love
involuntary with of
she
criticizing her recommended
hands
act 1. on
each
Zulaykhā,
In
their verse
inguest say:
30,
their
part,
a
a food
knife;
the
innā
view, women, and
la-narāha
that ḍalāli
criticizing
the fīwife
women in the city, very likely Note:
Publisher’s MDPI standard
her peers, ridicule
stays standard
neu- interpretation
her,elementsinterpretation
saying
Joseph thatofof “It
Publisher’s
ismake
verse
malāma, ofclear
is
Note:
presented
verse
31 The oftosūra
shamāta,
MDPI 31
before usofthat
(Ṭabāṭabāʾī
Pakistani
elements
stays 12.
sūra
and
neu-
the
Itshe is
12.2002,
Qurʾānic
iddi
of
women;
amalāma,
ꜤIt
fairly
āʾ,is aexegete,
that
Joseph
fairly
representative
5 12:149). shamāta,
is,
is of
representative
Amīn
presented and
reproach, list,Ꜥmalicious
Aḥsan
iddibefore
though,
list,
āʾ,Iṣlāḥī
5 that
the
though,and
(d.
is, and or
1418/1997),
pleasure
women; of reproach
is clear to us that she has gone astray!” is clearThis to statement,
us that she says has Iṣlāḥī,
gone ca
has gone astray”drinks
slave—andas well
stranger as
still,dietary
that should
she (and
should other failtoto living) himhabits do herthat wish; are useful
malicious for memorization, slave—and and
stranger still, that
(innā withposition
tral la-narāhā regardfī to accepted
ḍalālin shouldmubīnin
jurisdictional by most
suffice [versetoclassical
suffice show30]). 1 and
tral show
that
A series
with the modern,
that
Urdu
regard said the
of
to Sunnī
interpretation
said
events
Qurʾānic
jurisdictional and
interpretation
follow
commentary, ShīꜤī,
has mufassirūn
practically
hasboastful
practically
Tadabbur-i the(“Qurʾānic
wholethe
Qurʾān whole
weight weight
of
(“Reflection the ofstrange,
the
on the
pleasure, in that she, like them a noblewoman, schadenfreude,
the womenshould and
are
elements
suffer
Minhāj,
boastful
stunned of
defeatschadenfreude,
This by
malāma, claim,
is
at not
Joseph’s
the respectively:
an
shamāta,
hands and
exhaustive
beauty,
the of andwomen
a cut
iddi Ꜥ
reproach,
list
their
are claim,
elements
āʾ, 5 ofthat the
stunned
pleasure, in
hands, respectively:
of
is, that
mufassirūn
and
by
malāma,
of in it is quite
Joseph’s
reproach,
that exclaim reproach,
who
shamāta,
she, subscr
beauty,
likethat
malicious and
them in
(verses 30–34)2: those causing
claims publishedforgetfulness
inexegetes”), mapssuch as
exegetical
and institu- (al-Ghazālı̄,
thetradition
exegetical following:
in tradition
their behind
claims inbehind
view, it. from—or
published
that mapspp.
it.
the rather,
and
wife
in 90–94.
institu-
their
of arejects—the
view, See
high-ranking that alsoaforestated
the al-Zarn
official
wife 31of shouldūjı̄,
interpretation
asūra pp.
high-ranking fallItas96–98,
isaaand
in love presents
officialwith hiq
Accepted: 27 July 2021
slave and, as a result, incur disgrace; and Joseph
boastful isclaim,
not instandard
a mortal
schadenfreude, that, human
had interpretation
and
they but boastful
been an angel; Joseph
in of
claim,
her verse
is not aof
respectively: mortal
schadenfreude,
slave 12.
and, human
reproach, and fairly
but inan
boastful
result, that angel;
incur itshou
represen her
claim
isdi
Published: 9 August 2021 Zulaykhā 126–27,
arranges tional affiliations.
a 130–33;
banquet, ꜤAbdallāh
Ibn
to which ibn
Jamā she ꜤAbbās
a, pp.
invites (d.90–95;686–7).
those
slave—and women; (Ibn
Makdisi
strangering ꜤAbbās
of 1981,
the
still,
should 1987,
verse p.
slave—and
that p. she 196);
102).
(Iṣlāḥī 17 Abū The
2001–2002,
should
stranger l-Ḥajjāj
fail writings
still,
to Mujāhid
4:208–210).
makethat of
she
him al-Ghazālı̄
Here,
should
do following,
her fail
wish; in
to makeis
malicioushis argu
him
Article 3. al-Qurashī
Iṣlāḥī’s
3. Iṣlāḥī’sInterpretation
Zulaykhā, feeling
Interpretation in their view,suffice
vindicated thatbefore theto show wife the that
Zulaykhā,
women,
of a the said
feeling
high-rankingsays
in interpretation
their that vindicated
Joseph
view,
official that willhas
before
should
the practically
eitherwife the
falldo wom
ofin alo
she hands each ibn Jabr (d. 722)wish (Mujāhid 2005, p, 117). Abū l-Ḥasan Muqātil ibn
thisguest regard a knife;
inspired later scholars, pleasure,
her such in as that
or be
1. she,
al-Zarn
slave—and Inlike
exegetical
imprisoned verse pleasure,
them
ūjı̄ and
30,
stranger and athe
traditionnoblewoman,
Nas in that
humiliated;
women,
still,. ı̄r she,
behind
al-Dı̄n
her
that wishlike
should
it.
criticizing
she al-T
orthem
should suffer
beūsı̄
slave—and afailnoblewoman,
Zulaykhā,(d.to
imprisoned defeat
672/1274).
make say:
stranger athim
and the
innāshould
hands
humiliated;
still,la-narāha
do that
her suffer
ofwis afī
she
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-Article Joseph is presented before the Sulaymān
women;(d. The767) (Muqātil
Pakistani
The Pakistani
slave Qurʾānic
Joseph and, 2003,Qurʾānic
as
prays 2:147);
exegete,
apleasure,
result,
to God is Abū
exegete,Amīn
incurfor
clear
in slave JaꜤfar
Amīn
Aḥsan
disgrace;
protection
that to us Muḥammad
and,
she,
Aḥsan
that Iṣlāḥī
as
like and ashe
against Iṣlāḥī
(d.
result,
boastful
Joseph
them has athe
ibn
1418/1997),
(d.
incur
prays
gone Jarīr
women’s
noblewoman, to al-
1418/1997),
claim, ˙astray!”
disgrace;
pleasure,
in his in
multivolume
in machinations,
God that, and
for
This
should
in
his
had
that
multivolume
boastful
theylike
protection
statement,
she,
suffer been
and claim,
against
defeat in her
God
themsays in
atath th
Iṣ
th n
the women are stunned byṬabarī Joseph’s (d.
Urdu 923) Urdu
beauty, (Ṭabarī
Qurʾānic Qurʾānic
cut 1909,
their
grants 12:122);
commentary, commentary,
hands,his prayer. andAbū l-Layth
Tadabbur-i
exclaim
3. Tadabbur-i
Iṣlāḥī’s al-Samarqandī
Qurʾān
that Qurʾān
Interpretation (“Reflection
grants (d. 983)
(“Reflectionhis on(Samar-
prayer. the onꜤQurʾān”),
the Qurʾān”), differs differs ma
Aḥsan
claims in published maps and institu- Noblewomenof
Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation
Joseph is not
Cut Their12:31
Qurʾān Hands? Amīn
5.aPrompts
mortal
Copyright: human for
qandī
© 2021
(Early)
but
by the1993,
from—or
an angel;Memorization
2:159–160);
from—or
authors. rather,rather, Abū
rejects—the
This Qurʾānic
Copyright:
of the
Isḥāq
rejects—the passage
2021
elements
Qur
©al-ThaꜤlabī
aforestated aforestated
schadenfreude,
by the
ān (d.
(verses
The authors.
of
slave and, as a result, incur disgrace; and
1035)
interpretation
Pakistani
malāma,
(Tha‘labī
interpretation
30–34)—indeed,
and
shamāta,
andQurʾānic
This
boastful
Qurʾānic
2004,
presents
and
and slave
thepresents
claim,
exegete,
iddi
3:372);
boastful
his
whole
passage
āʾ,
own of
respectively:
Amīn
5 that
and, asclaim,
his the
is,
a result,
understand-
own
(verses
Aḥsan
of reproach,
in that,
understand-
sūra—raises,
incurhad
30–34)—indeed
reproach,
Iṣlāḥī
disgra
be-that
in
(d. 1418/19
the
Zulaykhā, feeling vindicated Maḥmūd
before ingtheibn
ofing ꜤUmar
the
women, of
versetheal-Zamakhsharī
verse
(Iṣlāḥī
says that(Iṣlāḥī
2001–2002,
Joseph (d.
2001–2002,
will 1144)
4:208–210).
either (Zamakhsharī
4:208–210). do Here, Here,
following, n.d.,
following, is2:253.);
his argumentIbn
ishigh-ranking
his argument stepcutting bystep step: by step:
Article Aḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31
her wish or be imprisoned
Mustansir
Besides
Submitted
publication under
Mir
the
for possible
ꜤAṭiyya
and
spiritual
open
thehumiliated;
terms
access
1.al-Andalusī
and In
merits
1. verse
con- In verse
30,
sides
of
(d.hands,
1147)
the 30,
Qur the
Submitted
women,(Ibn
the
publication
a
issues
ān for
ꜤAṭiyya
women,
number
of
memorization
possible
in
Urdu
criticizing
under theof
interpretation
open
their
2007,
criticizing
terms
slave—and general
access
view,
Qurʾānic
3:239);
Zulaykhā,
and con-
and
Zulaykhā,
and
stranger
thatof
Abū
specific
the sides
the
the
commentary,
say:ꜤAlī
incident
innā
hands,
wife
say:
still

Religions 13 00179 v3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Religions 13 00179 v3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

religions

Article Why Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut Their Hands? Am

ḥsan Iṣlāḥīʾs Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31

According to some, the large-scale adoption of such a traditional teaching method

Mustansir Mir publication under the terms

Why Did the Egyptian Noblewomen Cut Their Hands?

2. Traditional Muslim Interpretation of Qurʾān 12:31

You might also like